Laipato v Truman - [2017] ACTSC 351

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Laipato v Truman
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 351
Hearing Date:	31 October 2017
DecisionDate:	27 November 2017
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [73]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION – self-represented defendant – magistrate rules incorrectly about admissibility of questions asked in cross-examination – no evidence on appeal as to basis for or content of proposed questions – application of the proviso in appeals governed by s 218 of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) – no miscarriage of justice – appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited:	Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), ss 43(1), 43(2), 103 Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT), s 38D Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 218
Cases Cited:	Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 Lee v The Queen [1998] HCA 60; 195 CLR 594 Nudd v The Queen [2006] HCA 9; 80 ALJR 614 Parkinson v Alexander (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 290 R v Hughes [1986] 2 NZLR 129
Parties:	David Laipato (Appellant) Aaron Truman (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel A Doig (Appellant) M Thomas (Respondent)
Solicitors Ben Aulich & Associates (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number:	SCA 52 of 2017
Court/Tribunal: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Magistrate Fryar Date of Decision: 12 May 2017 Case Title: Aaron Truman v David Christopher Laipato; Jason Comer v David Christopher Laipato; Jason Comer v David Christopher Laipato; Jason Comer v David Christopher Laipato; Court File Numbers: CC2016/10740 CC2017/2994 CC2017/2995 CC2017/3904

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

This is an appeal against the conviction and sentence of the appellant in relation to a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. A magistrate found the offence proved on 10 April 2017 and, sentenced the appellant to 18 months’ imprisonment on 12 May 2017. At the same time he was sentenced on a number of other charges.

The appellant has appealed against the conviction and sentence on the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (charge CC2016/10740). The appeal, if successful, would also affect other sentences (charges CC2017/2994, CC2017/2995 and CC2017/3904) and hence he has appealed against those other sentences to the extent that is necessary.

The grounds of appeal were:

a)The Learned Magistrate’s conduct of the proceedings generally was such that it resulted in a miscarriage of justice in that the appellant did not receive a fair trial according to law;
b)Further and in the alternative, the learned Magistrate erred in not allowing the Appellant to cross-examine witnesses regarding prior inconsistent statements.

A third ground of appeal alleging that the sentence was manifestly excessive was abandoned.

Counsel for the appellant explained that ground (b) was the substance of ground (a) of the appeal and that there were no matters other than the matters referred to in ground (b) said to give rise to ground (a).

As a consequence the issue is whether the magistrate erred in not allowing the appellant to cross‑examine witnesses in relation to prior inconsistent statements and whether that resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Proceedings before the…

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.

Continue reading Laipato v Truman

Details

AGLC: Laipato v Truman [2017] ACTSC 351
Case: [2017] ACTSC 351
Decision Date: 27 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Laipato v Truman involved the appellant, who was self-represented in the trial, appealing against his conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The trial was conducted in the Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The appellant argued that the magistrate had erred in ruling that certain questions he proposed to ask a witness in cross-examination were inadmissible. The appeal hinged on whether the magistrate's decision regarding the admissibility of the proposed questions constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The legal issues before the court included whether the magistrate's ruling on the admissibility of the questions led to a miscarriage of justice and whether there was sufficient evidence on appeal to assess the content and basis of the proposed questions. The court noted that there was no evidence on appeal regarding the content or basis of the proposed questions, making it difficult to assess the magistrate's decision. The court also had to consider the application of the proviso in section 218 of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) in the context of appeals against conviction.

The court found that the appellant's appeal against conviction did not succeed as there was no evidence to show that the magistrate's ruling led to a miscarriage of justice. The court held that the appeal was governed by the proviso in section 218 of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), which stipulates that the court may not grant relief on an appeal against conviction unless it is satisfied that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. The court concluded that the appellant had not demonstrated that the magistrate's decision regarding the admissibility of the questions resulted in a miscarriage of justice, and therefore dismissed the appeal.

The court's orders, as referenced in paragraph [73], upheld the conviction of the appellant, and the appeal was dismissed without any further orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [73]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.