Monaghan v Calatzis

Case [2021] ACTSC 4

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Monaghan v Calatzis

Citation:

[2021] ACTSC 4

Hearing Date:

23 November 2020

DecisionDate:

1 February 2021

Before:

McWilliam AsJ

Decision:

See [98]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – Appeal from the Magistrates Court against conviction – where prosecution proceeded on a differently particularised charge – where the change in particulars was a material part of the charge – whether finding of interference with a conveyance was unreasonable or a denial of procedural fairness – whether finding of dangerous driving was unreasonable

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 56, 318
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 12, 28, 27
Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) ss 28, 208, 218
Road Transport (Safety and Transport Management) Act 1999 (ACT) s 7

Cases Cited:

Asim v Penrose & Anor [2010] NSWCA 366

Gillard v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 17
Jiminez v The Queen [1992] HCA 14; 173 CLR 572
John L. Pty Ltd v Attorney-General (NSW) [1987] HCA 4; 163 CLR 508
King v R [2012] HCA 24; 245 CLR 588
Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission; Kirk Group Holdings Pty Ltd v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (Inspector Childs) [2010] HCA 1; 239 CLR 531
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; 181 CLR 487
McBride v R [1966] HCA 22; 115 CLR 44
Muench v McCue [2020] ACTCA 17
Parkinson v Alexander [2016] ACTSCFC 1; 11 ACTLR 190
R v Coventry [1938] HCA 31; 59 CLR 633
R v Galvin [1998] ACTSC 104
R v Girvan (No 2) [2013] ACTSC 138
R v Jarvis (a pseudonym) [2018] VSCA 173; 55 VR 543
R v Masina (No 3) [2020] ACTSC 154
Shepherd v The Queen [1990] HCA 56; 170 CLR 573
R v Tangye (1997) 92 A Crim R 545
The Queen v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35; 258 CLR 308
Wade v Evans [2003] ACTSC 85; 180 FLR 29

Parties:

Jonathan Monaghan (Appellant)

Paul Calatzis (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

S McLaughlin (Appellant)

C Muthurajah (Respondent)

Solicitors

Legal Aid ACT (Appellant)

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number:

SCA 43 of 2020

Decision under appeal: 

Court/Tribunal:             Magistrates Court of the ACT

Before:  Chief Magistrate Walker

Date of Decision:          16 July 2020

Case Title:  Calatzis v Monaghan

Court File Numbers:      CC 676 of 2020

  CC 3029 of 2020

McWilliam AsJ:

Introduction

  1. On 16 July 2020, Chief Magistrate Walker found the appellant, Jonathan Monaghan, guilty of two offences:

(a)CC2020/676 – dangerous driving, contrary to s 7(1) of the Road Transport (Safety and Transport Management) Act 1999 (ACT) (the Road Transport Act); and

(b)CC2020/3029 – interfering with a conveyance, contrary to s 28(2)(e) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (the Crimes Act).

  1. For ease of reading, I will refer to each charge as the dangerous driving charge and the interference charge respectively.

  1. The offences relate to a set of largely agreed factual circumstances. On 24 December 2019, the police had been…

Continue reading Monaghan v Calatzis

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Monaghan v Calatzis [2021] ACTSC 4
Case
[2021] ACTSC 4
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Monaghan appeals against his conviction for interfering with a conveyance and driving dangerously. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The appeal concerns whether the County Court should have quashed the conviction due to the prosecution proceeding on a differently particularised charge. The prosecution initially charged Monaghan with driving without due care and attention, but later changed the charge to include dangerous driving and interfering with a conveyance. Monaghan argued that this change was a material part of the charge, and that the original charge did not provide sufficient information about the nature of the conduct.

The court examined whether the finding of interference with a conveyance was unreasonable or a denial of procedural fairness. The court also considered whether the finding of dangerous driving was unreasonable. The court found that the change in particulars did not prejudice the respondent, as the facts alleged in the amended charge were essentially the same as those alleged in the original charge. The court further held that the prosecution did not need to prove that the respondent knew the person who interfered with the conveyance. The appeal was dismissed.

Monaghan's appeal against his conviction for interfering with a conveyance and driving dangerously was dismissed. The court found that the change in particulars did not prejudice the respondent and that the findings were not unreasonable or a denial of procedural fairness. The conviction stands as originally decided by the Magistrates Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [98]

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.