Pellegrino v Harman

Case [2016] ACTSC 366


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Pellegrino v Harman

Citation:

[2016] ACTSC 366

Hearing Date:

27 July 2016

DecisionDate:

13 December 2016

Before:

Refshauge J

Decision:

1.     The appeal be upheld in part.

2.     The convictions entered on 29 September 2015 for the following charges be confirmed:

(i)    using a carriage service on 4 June 2014 in a way that reasonable people would in all the circumstances regard as being menacing (CC2014/10356);  and

(ii)    between 31 January 2014 and 1 March 2014, committing an act of indecency on the complainant without her consent and being reckless as to whether she consented (CC2015/3604);

3.   The convictions entered on 29 September 2015 for the following charges be set aside:

(i)    between 30 April 2013 and 1 June 2013, committing an act of indecency on the complainant without her consent and being reckless as to whether she consented (CC2015/3601);

(ii)    between 31 May 2013 and 1 July 2013, committing an act of indecency on the complainant without her consent and being reckless as to whether she consented (CC2015/3602);

(iii)   between 31 January 2014 and 1 March 2014, committing an act of indecency on the complainant without her consent and being reckless as to whether she consented (CC2015/3603);

(iv)   between 21 January 2014 and 4 June 2014, committing an act of indecency on the complainant without her consent and being reckless as to whether she consented (CC2015/3605);

(v)    between 30 November 2013 and 13 June 2014, committing an act of indecency on the complainant without her consent and being reckless as to whether she consented (CC2015/3606);  and

(vi)   between 1 January 2014 and 31 January 2014, committing an act of indecency on the complainant without her consent and being reckless as to whether she consented (CC2015/3607).

4.   The proceedings in respect of the charges set out in order 3 be remitted to the ACT Magistrates Court for re-trial before a different Magistrate.

Catchwords:

APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against conviction entered in the Magistrates Court – findings of guilt unreasonable having regard to all of the evidence – the learned Magistrate made findings of fact not available on the evidence – using a carriage service to menace – committing an act of indecency – elements of the offence – application of the wrong test of culpability – credibility of witness – appeal upheld in part – re-trial

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 60, 60(1)

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 85ZE
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), ss 474.17, 474.17(1)
Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT), ss 37, 43A, 43A(4), 43A(5), 43A(6), 71, 72, Pt 3
Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), ss 207, 208(1)(b), 208(1)(e)

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 16

Cases Cited:

Anderson [2001] NSWCCA 488; 127 A Crim R 116

Barlow v Wiseman [2014] ACTSC 166
Connelly v Allan [2011] ACTSC 170; 212 A Crim R 320
Crowther v Sala [2007] QCA 133; [2008] 1 Qd R 127
DF v The Queen [2011] ACTCA…

Continue reading Pellegrino v Harman

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Pellegrino v Harman [2016] ACTSC 366
Case
[2016] ACTSC 366
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pellegrino appealed against his conviction by the Magistrates Court, challenging the findings of guilt on several counts. The nature of the dispute involved allegations of using a carriage service in a menacing manner and committing acts of indecency without consent. The appeal was heard in the ACT Supreme Court. The legal issues focused on the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of guilt and the application of the correct test of culpability by the Magistrate.

The court examined the evidence and the Magistrate's findings, concluding that some of the findings of guilt were unreasonable given the evidence presented. The court found that the Magistrate had applied the wrong test of culpability and had made findings of fact not supported by the evidence. The court also considered the credibility of the witness and concluded that some of the convictions were not supported by the evidence. As a result, the appeal was upheld in part.

The court confirmed the convictions for using a carriage service in a menacing manner and for committing an act of indecency without consent on one occasion, but set aside the convictions for other acts of indecency without consent. The court ordered that the proceedings for the set aside charges be remitted to the Magistrates Court for re-trial before a different Magistrate. This decision highlights the importance of correctly applying legal tests and ensuring that findings of guilt are supported by the evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be upheld in part.

2. The convictions entered on 29 September 2015 for the following charges be confirmed:

(i) using a carriage service on 4 June 2014 in a way that reasonable people would in all the circumstances regard as being menacing (CC2014/10356); and

(ii) between 31 January 2014 and 1 March 2014, committing an act of indecency on the complainant without her consent and being reckless as to whether she consented (CC2015/3604);

3. The convictions entered on 29 September 2015 for the following charges be set aside:

(i) between 30 April 2013 and 1 June 2013, committing an act of indecency on the complainant without her consent and being reckless as to whether she consented (CC2015/3601);

(ii) between 31 May 2013 and 1 July 2013, committing an act of indecency on the complainant without her consent and being reckless as to whether she consented (CC2015/3602);

(iii) between 31 January 2014 and 1 March 2014, committing an act of indecency on the complainant without her consent and being reckless as to whether she consented (CC2015/3603);

(iv) between 21 January 2014 and 4 June 2014, committing an act of indecency on the complainant without her consent and being reckless as to whether she consented (CC2015/3605);

(v) between 30 November 2013 and 13 June 2014, committing an act of indecency on the complainant without her consent and being reckless as to whether she consented (CC2015/3606); and

(vi) between 1 January 2014 and 31 January 2014, committing an act of indecency on the complainant without her consent and being reckless as to whether she consented (CC2015/3607).

4. The proceedings in respect of the charges set out in order 3 be remitted to the ACT Magistrates Court for re-trial before a different Magistrate.

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.