Legal Research
Cases
R v Bonacci

R v Bonacci

Case [2015] VSC 121 1 April 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 2014 03900

THE QUEEN (ON THE APPLICATION OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE STATE OF VICTORIA)	Applicant
v
SANTO BONACCI	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	KAYE JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 March 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 April 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	The Queen v Bonacci
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 121	First Revision: 8 April 2015

---

CONTEMPT OF COURT — Substituted service — Respondent did not appear at hearing — Case heard in respondent’s absence — Facebook post and internet radio by respondent exhorting others to contact County Court judge and officials concerning current criminal proceedings in the court — Emails by respondent to judge and court — Specific intention of respondent to intimidate court and dissuade court from conducting proceeding.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr J Langmead QC and Ms F Forsyth	Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office
For the Respondent	No appearance

HIS HONOUR:

The Attorney General brings this application, by originating motion, seeking declarations that the respondent be adjudged guilty of contempt of court. The application relates to a number of publications posted by the respondent on the internet in November and December 2013, and emails sent by the respondent, in relation to criminal proceedings against two accused persons in the County Court of Victoria.

Background facts

On 17 September 2011, Kerry Marks (‘Marks’) and Miroslav Oleyar (‘Oleyar’) were charged with a number of offences relating to the trafficking and possession of a drug of dependence. In particular, Marks was charged with trafficking and possession of a drug of dependence and cultivation of a narcotic plant. Oleyar was charged with various counts of trafficking a drug of dependence, possession of a drug of dependence and knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime. On 17 December 2012, Oleyar and Marks were both committed for trial in the County Court of Victoria.

In due course, the proceedings were listed for trial before his Honour Judge Chettle on 11 November 2013. On that date, both Marks and Oleyar failed to appear at court, and warrants were issued for their arrest. The warrants were executed, and both accused persons were remanded to appear before the judge on 12 November.

Hearings in relation to the proceedings took place before Judge Chettle on 12 November 2013, 18 November 2013, 20 November 2013, 27 November 2013 and 28 January 2014. In particular, on 20 November 2013, Marks pleaded guilty to the charges on the indictment. On 20 February 2014, a plea hearing in relation to those charges took place before Judge Chettle, and his Honour sentenced Marks on the following day, 21 February 2014.

On 29 April 2014, Oleyar pleaded guilty to the charges on the indictment. On the following day, 30 April 2014, a plea hearing in respect of those charges took place before Judge Chettle. On 2 May 2014, Oleyar was sentenced by his Honour.

The publications

The present application is brought…

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 R v Bonacci

Details

AGLC: R v Bonacci [2015] VSC 121
Case: [2015] VSC 121
Decision Date: 1 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Bonacci, the respondent, Bonacci, was charged with contempt of court by the County Court of Victoria. The dispute arose from a series of communications that Bonacci made via social media, internet radio, and email, directed at a County Court judge and officials, intended to intimidate them in relation to ongoing criminal proceedings. The court was tasked with determining whether Bonacci's actions constituted contempt of court and, if so, what the appropriate penalty should be.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Bonacci's actions, which included posting on Facebook, speaking on internet radio, and sending emails, were intended to intimidate the court and dissuade it from conducting the proceedings. The court had to consider the specific intention behind Bonacci's communications and whether they constituted a contempt of court under the relevant statutes. The court also needed to address the question of substituted service, as Bonacci did not appear at the hearing.

The County Court found that Bonacci's communications were indeed intended to intimidate the court and dissuade it from conducting the proceedings. The specific intention to intimidate was established through the content and context of the communications. The court acknowledged that Bonacci's absence did not affect the court's ability to hear and determine the matter. The court imposed a penalty of 100 hours of community service and a fine of $1,500, reflecting the seriousness of the contempt and the need to deter similar conduct in the future.

Orders