Legal Research
Cases
Maher v Krumins

Maher v Krumins

Case [2022] VSC 281 27 May 2022

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S ECI 2021 02397

ANTHONY MAHER	First Appellant
and
DAVID MAHER	Second Appellant
v
LAURA KRUMINS	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Jane Dixon J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23 March 2022
DATE OF RULING:	27 May 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Maher & Anor v Krumins
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 281

---

JUDICIAL REVIEW – Criminal Law – Animal cruelty charges – Appeal from Magistrates’ Court on a question of law – Magistrate fined both appellants – Appellants disqualified from being in charge of animals for 10 years – Where Magistrate erred in making comparisons to different legislative scheme and referred to expectations regarding material that should have been provided by the appellants – Appeal allowed – Criminal Procedure Act s 272 – Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 ss 10, 12 – Sentencing Act 1991 ss 5, 6, 7.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the First and Second Appellant	Mr K McDonald	Sofra Solicitors
For the Respondent	Mr A Sim	Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions

HER HONOUR:
Introduction

This is an appeal on a question of law under s 272 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) (‘CPA’) from orders made in the Shepparton Magistrates’ Court on 11 June 2021. Under s 272 of the CPA, a party to a criminal proceeding in the Magistrates’ Court may bring an appeal on a question of law from a final order of the Magistrates’ Court. The orders imposed below included fines against each appellant after they pleaded guilty to, and were convicted of, several offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 (Vic) (‘PCA Act’); and the Magistrate also made an order against each appellant under s 12 of the PCA Act disqualifying them from being in charge of any farm animal for 10 years. The respondent, Laura Krumins, of the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions (‘the Department’), is the informant in the PCA Act charges against both appellants: Anthony Maher and David Maher.

In their notice of appeal dated 8 July 2022, the appellants raised the following four questions of law arising from the Magistrates’ Court orders made 11 June 2021:

(a) Did the Magistrate err by holding that the offences for which the appellants were to be sentenced were analogous to the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic) (‘OHS Act’)? (‘Ground One’);

(b) Was there any or any sufficient evidence establishing facts which the Magistrate relied on as adverse to the appellants where they did not admit those facts, and did the Magistrate impermissibly reverse the onus of proof by taking those facts into account when disqualifying the appellants from being in charge of farm animals for 10 years? (‘Ground Two’);

(c) Did the Magistrate have any or any proper regard to the principles of totality, proportionality, and parsimony in imposing the sentences he did? (‘Ground Three’); and

(d) Were the Magistrate’s sentences manifestly excessive? (‘Ground Four’).

Procedural…

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 Maher v Krumins

Details

AGLC: Maher v Krumins [2022] VSC 281
Case: [2022] VSC 281
Decision Date: 27 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involves Maher and Krumins, who were fined and disqualified from being in charge of animals for a period of ten years following charges of animal cruelty. The decision to fine and disqualify them was made by a magistrate and the appellants sought judicial review of this decision in the higher court. The legal issues at the heart of this appeal revolve around the magistrate’s interpretation and application of relevant statutory provisions, specifically sections of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, and the Sentencing Act. The appellants contended that the magistrate had erred in their decision-making process, particularly by making comparisons to a different legislative framework and by making references to expectations concerning materials that should have been provided by the appellants.

The court found that the magistrate had indeed erred in their approach, which led to an improper decision. The magistrate's comparisons to a different legislative scheme and their comments on the expectations of materials to be provided by the appellants were not relevant to the specific statutory provisions that applied to this case. These errors meant that the magistrate did not correctly apply the law, which is a fundamental requirement in judicial decision-making. Given this error, the court concluded that the appeal should be allowed and that the original decision needed to be quashed. The case will now be remitted back to the Magistrates’ Court for reconsideration in light of the court’s findings.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed, and the decision of the magistrate be quashed. The matter was to be remitted to the Magistrates’ Court for reconsideration in accordance with the court's reasoning and findings. The court did not make any further orders regarding the costs of the appeal.

Orders