Maris v Police - [2025] SASC 131

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeal: Criminal)
MARIS v POLICE
[2025] SASC 131
Judgment of the Honourable Justice McDonald
14 August 2025
MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT - GROUNDS - CONVICTION ON EX PARTE HEARING
This is an appeal against conviction for the offences of driving an unregistered motor vehicle (contrary to s 9(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA)), failing to provide personal details to a police officer on request (contrary to s 40V(4)(b)(i) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA)), and failing to comply with a direction to stop a vehicle for the purpose of an alcotest (contrary to s 47E(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA)).
The notice of appeal was filed out of time. An extension of time was granted.
The notice of appeal contains eight grounds. Although there are eight grounds of appeal the central issue is a complaint that the Magistrate proceeded ex parte, resulting in an unfair trial. It is necessary to mention that the appellant was in fact present in the body of the court throughout the trial, but refused to answer to his name and/or enter a plea.
Central to the main issue are the decisions of Vandongen J in Kelly v Fiander [2023] WASC 187 and Peek J in Adelaide City Council v Lepse [2016] SASC 66.
In Kelly v Fiander, Vandongen J held that the Magistrate was in error in finding that a defendant had not appeared, on the basis that the defendant in that case was present in the courtroom, no one else claimed to the be the defendant, and the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) do not explicitly say that a person who is before a court, is required to acknowledge that they are the person named in the prosecution notice.
In Adelaide City Council v Lepse, Peek J held that the Magistrate was correct in requiring that the defendant approach the bar table and confirm that they were the person named on the Information, and that their repeated refusal to do so justified the Magistrate proceeding to convict the defendant in accordance with ss 62(1)(b) and 62BA of the Summary Procedure Act 1921 (SA).
There are marked similarities in the manner in which the appellant and the defendants in Kelly v Fiander and Adelaide City Council v Lepse presented themselves, and as to how events unfolded before the respective Magistrates. Factually, there are limited distinctions between these cases and, consequently, the decisions cannot be reconciled.
The reasoning and outcome in Adelaide City Council v Lepse is preferred to the decision in Kelly v Fiander.
There is no merit to the remaining seven grounds of appeal.
Held:
1. The Magistrate in the present case correctly determined to proceed in circumstances in which the appellant refused to engage in the process, such that the Magistrate could…

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 Maris v Police

Details

AGLC: Maris v Police [2025] SASC 131
Case: [2025] SASC 131
Decision Date: 14 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Maris v Police was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The appeal was brought by the defendant, Mr Maris, against a conviction obtained by the Magistrate in an ex parte hearing. The core issue was whether the Magistrate erred by proceeding with the trial without Mr Maris's participation in a meaningful way, despite his physical presence in court, which the appellant claimed resulted in an unfair trial.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the Magistrate's decision to proceed with the trial despite Mr Maris's refusal to acknowledge his name or enter a plea constituted a breach of the appellant's right to a fair trial under the common law and whether this procedural error was so significant that it tainted the entire trial. The Court had to determine whether the appeal grounds, particularly the claim of an ex parte hearing, had merit and whether they justified setting aside the conviction.

In dismissing the appeal, the Court held that the Magistrate did not act unfairly or in breach of procedural fairness. The Court reasoned that Mr Maris's presence in court, even if he did not engage with the proceedings in the traditional sense, did not mean the hearing was ex parte. The Court emphasised that Mr Maris was given opportunities to clarify his position and enter a plea, which he refused. The trial continued in his absence only after the Magistrate was satisfied that Mr Maris had been given a fair opportunity to participate. The Court concluded that there was no miscarriage of justice and the conviction stood.

The final orders of the Court were to dismiss the appeal and to hear the parties on the issue of costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Although there are eight grounds of appeal, the central issue is a complaint that the Magistrate proceeded “ex parte” resulting in an unfair trial. Having said that, Mr Maris was present in the body of the court throughout the trial, however, he refused to answer to his name and/or enter a plea. Factual background On 11 December 2022, police stopped Mr Maris’ vehicle on the Spencer Highway between Wallaroo and Moonta. A registration check had been conducted as police passed the vehicle. That check revealed that the vehicle was unregistered, the registration having expired on 6 April 2022. Police approached the driver’s side window and Mr Maris responded by winding it down by about 10 centimetres. Police asked Mr Maris to put the window down further so that he could submit to an alcotest, and a licence check. He refused. Mr Maris told the police that he would undertake an alcotest if he was paid “a performance fee” of $150,000. Mr Maris repeatedly stated that “he had done nothing wrong and for a crime to be committed there must be a victim”.[5] [5] FDN 2, Facts of Charge filed 28 December 2022, MCCRM-22-018048. It was the police allegation that when they directed Mr Maris to provide his personal particulars, he refused. Mr Maris’ account is that he produced a form of identification, however, it was an identification card that he had created himself, which incorporated his photograph, thumbprint and signature. The police told Mr Maris that if he continued to fail to comply with the direction, and did not produce a recognised form of identification, he would be arrested. Mr Maris remained non-compliant. As a consequence, the police used a glass breaker on the rear passenger window, in order to gain access to the vehicle for the purpose of unlocking the car doors to arrest Mr Maris. He was subsequently arrested and taken to the Kadina Police Station, where he was granted police bail.The trial The trial was listed to commence at 11.00am, on 31 January 2024. The matter was called on at about 11.30am. Mr Maris’ name was called in the usual fashion. Mr Maris entered the courtroom. Upon his entry, the Magistrate enquired as to whether he was Charalampos Maris. Mr Maris replied, “I am Charalampos, and I am here as executor of Charalampos Maris estate”. The following exchange then took place:[6][6] T2. Q.How do I spell that name?A.Charalampos, you can say Harry because it is easier. It’s my sole name. You can call me Harry.Q.I will ask you again, are you the defendant, Charalampos Maris.A.I am the executor of the estate that supports the accused here.Q.Just so I can understand, are you saying that you are not Charalampos Maris?A.What I am saying is I’m Charalampos and I’m the executor of the Maris estate.Q.We have a trial ready to commence against a defendant who is name is Charalampos Maris.A.Yes, this is the estate. Despite Mr Maris failing to directly respond to her enquires, the Magistrate took a pragmatic approach and asked Mr Maris whether he was willing to enter into the dock, state his name as Charalampos Maris and enter a plea of guilty or not guilty.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

I dismiss ground 8.Conclusion There is no merit to any of the grounds of appeal. I make the following orders:1.The appeal is dismissed. 2.I will hear the parties on the issue of costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.