Legal Research
Cases
Matsoukatidou v Yarra Ranges Council

Matsoukatidou v Yarra Ranges Council

Link copied

Case Copied 70 min read

Contents

On this page

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 2014 04972

MARIA MATSOUKATIDOU	Plaintiff
v
YARRA RANGES COUNCIL	Defendant

S CI 2014 04973

BETTY MATSOUKATIDOU	Plaintiff
v
YARRA RANGES COUNCIL	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Bell J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 & 26 June, 24 July and 21 October 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 February 2017 (revised 25 May and 19 October 2017)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Matsoukatidou v Yarra Ranges Council
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 61

---

CRIMINAL LAW – judicial review – practice and procedure – applications before judge in County Court OF Victoria for orders reinstating struck out appeals from sentences of Magistrates’ Court of Victoria – applicants self-represented – whether judge ensured fair trial by giving them due advice and assistance – relationship between that duty and human rights to equality and fair hearing – equal access to justice – Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) s 267(3), Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) ss 6(2)(b), 8(3) and 24(1), Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) O 56.

HUMAN RIGHTS – equality – fair hearing – equal access to justice – daughter and mother sentenced in Magistrates’ Court for offences – appeals to County Court struck out – applications made for orders reinstating appeals – applicants self-represented – daughter an invalid pensioner with disability and mother her carer – applications dismissed – human rights applying to hearings in court and tribunals – application and scope of procedural dimension of right to equality – application and scope of right to fair hearing – whether judge made adjustments and accommodations to hearing procedure to ensure daughter did not suffer discrimination by reason of disability – whether judge ensured that daughter and mother effectively participated in and thereby obtained fair hearing – ‘equality of arms’ – Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) ss 6(2)(b), 8(3) and 24(1).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the plaintiffs	Mr L Howson (18 June 2015) Ms E Tadros (24 July 2015) Ms K Evans with Ms E Tadros (21 October 2015)	Colin Biggers & Paisley
For the defendant	Mr P Lawrie	Goddard Elliott Lawyers
For the Attorney-General	Ms S Fitzgerald (24 July 2015) Ms M Richards SC with Ms S Fitzgerald (21 October 2015)	Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office

HIS HONOUR:

INTRODUCTION

Yarra Ranges Council charged Maria Matsoukatidou and her mother Betty with committing certain offences against the Building Act 1993 (Vic) arising out of their failure to secure and demolish their home after an arsonist burnt it down. At the hearing of the charges in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, they appeared self-represented. Maria was fined without and Betty was fined with conviction.

Maria and Betty appealed to the County Court of Victoria under the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) but the appeals were struck out for non-attendance. Believing that they had good explanations, they applied to the County Court for orders reinstating the appeals. While the matters were…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Matsoukatidou v Yarra Ranges Council and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] VSC 61
Decision Date: 28 February 2017 (revised 25 May and 19 October 2017)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Matsoukatidou v Yarra Ranges Council, the applicants, a mother and her daughter, sought judicial review of decisions by a judge of the County Court of Victoria to strike out their appeals against convictions and sentences imposed by the Magistrates’ Court. The applicants, appearing in person, challenged the fairness of the proceedings and argued that their human rights to equality and a fair hearing were breached. The applicants contended that the judge failed to provide adequate advice and assistance to ensure they could effectively participate in the appeal process. The applicants also alleged that the judge did not make appropriate adjustments to accommodate the daughter’s disability, resulting in discrimination and an unfair hearing.

The court had to determine whether the judge ensured that the applicants, particularly the disabled daughter, received fair and equal treatment in the appeal process. This involved examining the relationship between the duty to ensure a fair trial and the applicants' human rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic). The court also considered whether the judge took sufficient steps to accommodate the daughter's disability and whether these steps were adequate to ensure an equal and fair process. The analysis included whether the procedural dimension of the right to equality and the right to a fair hearing were appropriately applied in this context.

The court held that the judge had fulfilled their duty to provide the applicants with due advice and assistance, thereby ensuring a fair trial. The judge's actions were deemed sufficient to accommodate the daughter's disability and to provide an equal opportunity for the applicants to participate effectively in the proceedings. The court found that the judge made reasonable adjustments and provided the necessary support to prevent discrimination and to ensure a fair hearing. Consequently, the applications for orders reinstating the appeals were dismissed. The court concluded that the judge's approach adequately balanced the applicants' human rights with the procedural requirements of the appeal process.

Orders