POLICE v DORRIZZI, SKILIFOFF, HILL & McBEATH [2002] SASC 356
Full Court: Duggan, Debelle and Williams JJ
DUGGAN J. The appellants were charged in the Adelaide Magistrates Court with a series of assaults alleged to have taken place in the course of an incident at the Marion Shopping Centre on 10 June 2000.
In his opening address to the court at the commencement of the summary trial the police prosecutor advised the magistrate that the victims and other eye witnesses would give evidence. He said that the victims and a number of the other witnesses attended a party at a nightclub in the shopping mall of the centre on the evening of 10 June 2000. One of those who attended the party was asked to leave as he was intoxicated. Those attending the party then left and a verbal exchange took place between some of them and security guards who were on duty in the mall. It was alleged that a physical altercation then took place and the appellants, who are all security guards, committed the assaults with which they were later charged.
The prosecutor told the magistrate that he would be calling about 50 witnesses, 30 of whom were in the group who attended the party. He said that in the case of two alleged assaults the victims and other witnesses could identify the defendants, but that some victims had no memories of alleged assaults on them and others had poor memories of the incident generally.
However, the police had taken possession of videotapes from security cameras which were in operation at the time and the prosecutor stated that an employee of the security firm which employed the defendants would be called as a witness to identify the defendants from the video footage which depicted the alleged assaults.
After completing the opening, the prosecutor called two police officers who gave evidence about retrieving the security tapes. Objection was taken to the tender of the tapes and the magistrate embarked on a voir dire hearing to determine their admissibility. Several witnesses were called on that hearing.
At the conclusion of the voir dire hearing, the magistrate ruled against the admissibility of the tapes. He said there were doubts about the provenance of the tapes and that they were not a continuous record of events. He also said they were of poor quality. He excluded them from evidence in the exercise of his discretion.
The police prosecutor was assisted by an officer from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions during the voir dire hearing. After the ruling by the magistrate, the police prosecutor decided to close the prosecution case. It appears from affidavit evidence supplied to the court that the prosecution considered the case would fail without the videotapes as evidence. It was realised that closing the case at this stage would lead to the dismissal of the information, but in his affidavit tendered on appeal the prosecutor explained that it was the intention of the prosecution to appeal…
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 Police v Dorizzi
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Police v Dorizzi [2002] SASC 356
Case
[2002] SASC 356
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Police v Dorizzi, Sklifoff, Hill and McBeath was an appeal against a decision of a magistrate dismissing charges against security guards for their alleged involvement in a series of assaults at the Marion Shopping Centre. The appeal was against the dismissal of the charges, but in truth was really an attempt to challenge the magistrate's ruling on the admissibility of videotapes from security cameras which were in operation at the time of the alleged incidents. The appeal provisions in the Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) specifically exclude appeals from interlocutory judgments given in summary proceedings. The appeal was flawed because the dismissal of the charges was correct and the appeal was really an attempt to appeal against an evidentiary ruling to enable the case to be reopened. The appeal provisions were being used for a purpose not authorised by the Act. The appeal was dismissed and the orders of the appeal judge were set aside.