Groom v Police

[2020] SASC 167

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)

GROOM v POLICE

[2020] SASC 167

Judgment of The Honourable Justice Lovell

11 September 2020

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - RIGHT OF APPEAL - WHEN APPEAL LIES - FROM INTERLOCUTORY DECISIONS

The appellant seeks permission to appeal against the order of a Magistrate, dismissing an application to vary or revoke an intervention order.

Permission to appeal against an interlocutory judgment – whether there are special reasons why it is in the administration of justice to determine the appeal

Held, per Lovell J:

1.      The appellant has failed to establish special reasons.

2.      Permission to appeal is refused.

Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) s 42, referred to.
Groom v Police [2014] SASC 41; Groom v Police; Groom v State of South Australia [2017] SASCFC 161, considered.

GROOM v POLICE
[2020] SASC 167

LOVELL J.

Overview

1. The appellant, Mr Groom, is unrepresented. He appeals the decision of the Magistrate made on 26 May 2020, dismissing his application for revocation of an intervention order.

2. The appeal stems from the confirmation of an intervention order, with the appellant’s consent, in December 2013. The appellant has been a litigant in this Court and the Magistrates Court on many occasions in relation to the same issue. It is not necessary to set out the lengthy history that stands behind this appeal.

   The appeal

3. The appellant is, in effect, seeking an order setting aside the Magistrate’s decision of 26 May 2020 and a declaration that the intervention order confirmed on 10 December 2013 is invalid. The appellant’s Notice of Appeal sets out 10 grounds, the gravamen of which is that the Magistrate erred by refusing to consider “new evidence”. The appellant also appeals on the basis that there was interference with the court process, which has rendered the court file “fatally flawed”.

4. This is an appeal against an interlocutory judgment of the Magistrate. Section 42 of the Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) governs appeals to this Court in criminal actions. Section 42(1a) provides:

   (1a) An appeal does not, however, lie against an interlocutory judgment unless—

   (a)the judgment stays the proceedings; or

   (b)the judgment destroys or substantially weakens the basis of the prosecution case and, if correct, is likely to lead to abandonment of the prosecution; or

   (c)the Court or the appellate court is satisfied that there are special reasons why it would be in the interests of the administration of justice to have the appeal determined before commencement or completion of the trial and grants its permission for an appeal.

5. An appeal does not lie against an interlocutory judgment, unless the Court is satisfied that there are “special reasons” why it would be in the interests of the administration of justice to have the appeal determined.[1] The appellant has not obtained permission to appeal and, as Mr Garnaut for the respondent submitted, in any event, the appeal is out of time. Although the appellant has not applied for an extension of time, I will treat the appeal as though it was lodged within time.

   [1]    Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) s 42(1)(c).

   Submissions

6. The appellant submits that the Magistrate’s decision should be set aside as the intervention order is invalid. He further submits that the order should be set aside as “somebody has interfered with the court file”, making it untrustworthy. The appellant concedes that he consented to the intervention order in 2013. The appellant is seeking to withdraw his consent to that order on the basis that it was not informed.[2]

   [2]    The appellant advanced the same argument before Kelly J in Groom v Police [2014] SASC 41, in which her Honour found that the appellant provided informed consent to the confirmation.

7. The appellant submits that the Full Court’s confirmation of the order is invalid as the Court did not have before it all the material relevant to his application. He submits that the affidavits setting out the complaint against him were not on the court file. He submits that without that material the Full Court were unable to assess whether he had a fair hearing.

8. The respondent submits that permission to appeal should be refused as the appeal is unmeritorious and an abuse of process. The respondent submits that the appellant is attempting to relitigate matters previously ventilated before the Magistrates Court, this Court and the Full Court.

   Consideration

9. The most relevant authority is the matter of Groom v Police; Groom v State of South Australia,[3] a decision of the Full Court delivered on 7 December 2017. I reject the appellant’s submission that the Full Court did not have before it the affidavits relating to the initial complaint against him.[4] The Full Court found that the interim intervention order made against the appellant was validly confirmed on 10 December 2013. Despite that finding, the appellant continues to agitate that the original intervention order is unlawful or invalid; that was the basis of his application before the Magistrate.

   [3] [2017] SASCFC 161.

   [4]    See Groom v Police [2017] SASCFC 161 at 5 [20].

10. In a thorough and clear judgment, the Magistrate set out the history of the matter, referred to and carefully analysed the relevant statutory framework and then carefully analysed the submissions of the appellant. It is also clear that the Magistrate directed the appellant’s attention to what he was required to prove, namely a substantial change in relevant circumstances that would enable her to consider varying or revoking the final intervention order. The appellant was unable and, indeed as he was in Court, unwilling to address the relevant issue. He continued to maintain the interim order was invalid.

11. The appellant has not demonstrated error in the Magistrate’s reasoning. Indeed, in my view, the Magistrate’s decision was correct.

12. The appellant fully understands that if he wishes to vary the intervention order, he must establish that there has been a substantial change in the relevant circumstances since the order was issued. He has singularly failed to do so both before the Magistrate and before me.

13. The appellant has failed to establish special reasons and therefore permission to appeal should be refused.

14. There is no merit in his appeal. I refuse permission to appeal and dismiss the appeal.

    Orders

    1Permission to appeal is refused.

    2Appeal dismissed.