Legal Research
Cases
Piccolotto v The Queen

Piccolotto v The Queen

Case [2015] VSCA 143 11 June 2015

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2014 0217
JASON PICCOLOTTO	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	REDLICH, SANTAMARIA and BEACH JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	26 May 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	11 June 2015
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSCA 143
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	R v Piccolotto (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Chettle, 17 September 2014 (date of sentence))

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Appeal – Trial – Fair trial – Judge's intervention in trial – Judge's intervention in cross-examination – Conduct of counsel – Procedure where judge obliged to intervene – Disparaging comments by judge – Whether exchanges between judge and counsel tainted the atmosphere of the trial so that it could not be asserted there had been a fair trial – Risk that jury form impression judge did not view counsel’s case with favour – Risk that credibility of counsel undermined – Application for leave to appeal granted – Appeal allowed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr G J Traczyk	C Marshall & Associates
For the Respondent	Ms S M K Borg	Ms V Anscombe, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

REDLICH JA
SANTAMARIA JA
BEACH JA:

Introduction

On 8 September 2014, following a six-day trial, the applicant was convicted of one charge of false imprisonment (charge 1) and one charge of making a threat to kill (charge 2). The charges related to an incident alleged to have occurred on 16 November 2012 involving the applicant’s then partner. At the commencement of the trial, and in the absence of the jury, the applicant pleaded guilty to a charge of possessing a drug of dependence (charge 4).[1]
[1]Charge 3 (a charge of threatening to inflict serious injury) was an alternative charge to charge 2 but, having regard to the guilty verdict on charge 2, no verdict was taken in relation to charge 3.

On 17 September 2014, a plea was conducted. On that day, the applicant also pleaded guilty to two summary charges namely, possessing a prohibited weapon (summary charge 11) and possessing cartridge ammunition without a licence or permit (summary charge 13). Following the plea hearing, and on the same day, the judge sentenced the applicant as follows:

Charge Offence Maximum Sentence

1 False imprisonment [Common law] 10 years [Crimes Act 1958 s 320] 2 years + 12 months

2 Threat to kill [Crimes Act 1958 s 20] 10 years 5 years Base

4 Possession of a drug of dependence [Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 s 73] 1 year 7 days

SC11 Possess a prohibited weapon [Control of Weapons Act 1990 s 5AA] 2 years 7 days

SC13 Possess cartridge ammunition without licence/permit [Firearms Act 1996 s 124(1)] 40 penalty units $200 fine

Total Effective Sentence: 6 years

Non-Parole Period: 3 years and 6 months

Pre-sentence Detention Declared: 277 days

6AAA Statement: On charge 4 and SC11 - a 14 day term of imprisonment and on SC13 — $300 fine

Other orders:…

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 Piccolotto v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Piccolotto v The Queen [2015] VSCA 143
Case: [2015] VSCA 143
Decision Date: 11 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Piccolotto v The Queen involved the appellant appealing against his conviction on two counts of murder. The trial took place in the Supreme Court of Victoria, and the appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant argued that his trial was unfair due to the trial judge's interventions in the proceedings and the cross-examination of witnesses. The appellant contended that the judge's conduct had tainted the atmosphere of the trial and had the potential to undermine the credibility of the defence counsel.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the judge's interventions in the trial and during cross-examination had compromised the fairness of the trial. The court considered whether the judge's conduct had created an atmosphere where the jury might have formed the impression that the judge did not view the appellant's case favourably, thereby affecting the impartiality of the trial. Additionally, the court examined whether the judge's conduct had the potential to undermine the credibility of the defence counsel.

The court found that the judge's conduct during the trial and cross-examination had indeed compromised the fairness of the trial. The court held that the judge's interventions had the potential to create an atmosphere where the jury might have formed the impression that the judge did not view the defence's case favourably, thus impacting the impartiality of the trial. The court also determined that the judge's conduct had the potential to undermine the credibility of the defence counsel. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and quashed the appellant's convictions.

Orders