Granato v Comptroller-General of Customs - [2018] WASC 201

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CITATION:   GRANATO -v- COMPTROLLER-GENERAL OF CUSTOMS [2018] WASC 201
CORAM:   MCGRATH J
HEARD:   16 APRIL 2018
DELIVERED          :   29 JUNE 2018
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1067 of 2017
BETWEEN:   SALVATORE GRANATO
Appellant
AND
COMPTROLLER-GENERAL OF CUSTOMS
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   CHIEF MAGISTRATE HEATH
File Number             :   PE 50661 of 2017

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Appellant convicted upon own plea of guilty - Integrity of plea - Appellant unaware of possible defence - Additional evidence on appeal - Evidence of circumstances of plea - Setting aside conviction

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), pt 2, s 8(2), s 9.2, s 14, s 40
Criminal Code (Cth), s 6.1, s 9.2, s 9.3, s 9.4
Criminal Code (WA), s 24
Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 (Cth), reg 4F(1), reg 4F(4)
Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 50, s 51, s 233(1)(b)

Result:

Extension of time to appeal granted
Leave to appeal granted
Conviction set aside
Appeal allowed
Matter remitted to the Magistrates Court before a different magistrate to determine the charge according to law

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr R K Williamson
Respondent	:	Ms S J Oliver

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Ross K Williamson
Respondent	:	Australian Government Solicitor

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Borsa v The Queen [2003] WASCA 254
Gibson v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 141
Gillespie v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 216
Glover v Reyne [2001] WASCA 305
Ianella v French (1968) 119 CLR 84
Liberti v The Queen (1991) 55 A Crim R 120
Mei Ying Sui v Australian Fisheries Management Authority (No 2) (2008) 251 ALR 135
Meissner v The Queen [1995] HCA 41; (1995) 184 CLR 132
Ostrowski v Palmer (2004) 218 CLR 493
Proudman v Dayman (1941) 67 CLR 536
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473
Snook v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2015] WASCA 29
Vella v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 129

MCGRATH J:

Mr Granato was charged with importing a firearm accessory into Australia in contravention of Commonwealth law. He appeared before a magistrate and pleaded guilty to that charge and was convicted. Mr Granato now wishes to set aside the conviction on the basis that he received erroneous legal advice that excluded an arguable defence.
Mr Granato contends that he had a belief concerning the nature of the item that he imported and that his belief afforded him the defence of mistake of fact under s 9.2 of the Criminal Code (Cth). However, as a consequence of the legal advice that he received, he understood that the defence was not arguable. Mr Granato in those circumstances says that his conviction has given rise to a miscarriage of justice. The Commonwealth contends that Mr Granato's belief was a mistake of law and that therefore a defence of mistake of fact does not…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Granato v Comptroller-General of Customs and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] WASC 201
Decision Date: 29 JUNE 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Granato v Comptroller-General of Customs, the appellant was convicted following a plea of guilty. The appellant challenged the conviction on the basis that they were unaware of a possible defence at the time of entering the plea. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the integrity of the plea and whether the conviction should be set aside. The central issue was whether the appellant's lack of knowledge about a possible defence rendered their plea invalid. The court examined the circumstances surrounding the plea and the appellant's understanding of the charges against them.

The court considered whether the appellant's lack of awareness of a potential defence invalidated the plea of guilty. It was necessary to assess the circumstances in which the plea was entered and whether the appellant had been properly advised. The court also evaluated the additional evidence presented during the appeal, which detailed the circumstances of the plea and the appellant's state of mind at the time. The court's decision hinged on whether the appellant's lack of knowledge about a potential defence was a significant factor that could undermine the voluntariness and informed nature of the plea.

The High Court found that the appellant's lack of awareness of a possible defence did indeed impact the integrity of the plea. The court concluded that the appellant's plea of guilty was not made with full knowledge of all relevant facts and defences, thus affecting the voluntariness of the plea. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction. The decision underscored the importance of ensuring that defendants are fully informed of all available defences before entering a plea, and that the plea process is conducted in a manner that upholds the principles of fairness and justice.

The final orders of the court involved setting aside the conviction and ordering a retrial, ensuring that the appellant would have the opportunity to present any available defences in a manner consistent with their rights. The court's decision highlighted the critical need for defendants to be adequately informed and advised in criminal proceedings, and it reinforced the principle that pleas of guilty must be made with full understanding and awareness of all relevant facts and defences.

Orders