| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST
S ECI 2018 02069
| JOSEPH MARIJANCEVIC | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| CHARMAINE ROSE MIFSUD, VICTORIA POLICE | First Defendant |
| and | |
| MAGISTRATES’ COURT OF VICTORIA | Second Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | Richards J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 31 January, 3 February 2020 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 28 February 2020 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Marijancevic v Mifsud |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2020] VSC 69 |
---
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Plaintiff convicted in Magistrates’ Court of theft and unlawful assault – Whether lawfulness of arrest relevant – Whether conviction reasonably open – Whether relevant matters considered – No error – Proceeding dismissed.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Mr DJ Carolan | Simon Legal |
| For the First Defendant | Mr BL Sonnet | Abbey Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
HER HONOUR:
On 12 August 2014, Joseph Marijancevic was arrested by police and interviewed in relation to an allegation that, on 17 July 2014, he stole some items from David Jones at the Highpoint shopping centre in Maribyrnong. Police also alleged that he had assaulted two security officers who approached him outside the store. Mr Marijancevic denied the allegations and declined to answer questions about his whereabouts that evening.
On 2 January 2015, Constable Charmaine Mifsud charged Mr Marijancevic on summons with one count of theft, two counts of unlawful assault, and one count of committing an indictable offence while on bail. The following statement of alleged facts was filed with the charges:
On the 17th of July 2014 at approximately 6:10 pm the accused, Joseph MARIJANCEVIC entered the David Jones store, located at Highpoint Shopping Centre, 200 Rosamond Road, Maribyrnong.
The accused selected 2 Waterford Scotch Tumbler Glasses, two Waterford Wine Glasses, two Boxes of Walker Toffees and one Tin of Farrahs Toffee, total value of $484.00. MARIJANCEVIC exited the store, making no attempt to pay for these items.
Loss Prevention Officer Nick NICOLAOU and Liam FOGARTY followed MARIJANCEVIC outside the store and were assisted by Highpoint Security Officer, Ardy MEKAIEL.
NICOLAOU, FOGARTY and MEKAIEL approached the male on level two of Highpoint Shopping Centre, outside the Ice Cream Kiosk. NICOLAOU identified himself to MARIJANCEVIC and asked that he return the items. MARIJANCEVIC refused and became violent and abusive. NICOLAOU attempted to detain MARIJANCEVIC but MARIJANCEVIC became violent and attempted to hit NICOLAOU, he attempted to punch NICOLAOU twice using a closed fist but did not make contact.
MARIJANCEVIC was asked by NICOLAOU a second time to return the items he had stolen and he complied with the request.
MARIJANCEVIC began removing items from his pockets. He removed a wine glass from his right pocket and handed it to MAKAEIL. The accused struck MAKEIL in the chest with his right hand, this caused pain to MAKAIELS chest.
MARIJANCEVIC returned all items that belonged to David Jones but due to his aggressive behaviour he was not apprehended at this stage but the incident was reported to Police. The theft and the…
- AGLC
- Marijancevic v Mifsud [2020] VSC 69
- Case
- [2020] VSC 69
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the legal issues regarding the relevance of the lawfulness of the arrest and whether the Magistrate had failed to consider relevant matters. The court examined whether the Magistrate's decision was open on the evidence presented, and if any errors were made that would warrant judicial review. The court assessed the evidence and the process by which the conviction was reached, with particular attention to whether the Magistrate had considered all relevant factors.
The court held that the lawfulness of the arrest was not a relevant factor in determining the validity of the conviction. It was found that the Magistrate had considered all relevant matters and that the conviction was reasonably open on the evidence. The court concluded that there was no error in the Magistrate's decision-making process and dismissed the application for judicial review. The court's reasoning was based on a thorough examination of the evidence and the legal standards applicable to the case.
No orders were made by the court beyond dismissing the application for judicial review. The conviction of the plaintiff remained intact, and no further legal action was deemed necessary. The court's decision provided clarity on the scope of judicial review in cases involving convictions and the factors that must be considered in such proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.