R v Mazur - [2000] VSCA 111

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 245 of 1999

THE QUEEN

KARL MAZUR

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., BROOKING and CHERNOV, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	8 June 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	8 June 2000
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSCA 111

---

Criminal law – Arson – Alleged lies as to whereabouts at time of fire – Available as suggesting consciousness of guilt – A commonsense notion – Not to be unduly eschewed.
Criminal law - Sentence – Arson – Immediate imprisonment ordinarily appropriate.
R. v. Perrone (1989) 43 A.Crim.R. 366 overruled.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. R.A. Elston	P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr. G. Thomas	Victoria Legal Aid

WINNEKE, P.:

I will invite Brooking, J.A. to deliver the first judgment in this application.

BROOKING, J.A.:

At about 11 o'clock on the night of Saturday, 24 January 1998, persons in the vicinity noticed that the Wattleseed Restaurant building in Cape Street, Heidelberg, was on fire. Extensive damage was done to the two-storey building. Karl Mazur was charged with arson. His trial had been expected to last four or five days. In fact almost a month was taken up by the trial, plea and sentence - from 7 to 29 September 1999. Mr Langslow appeared for the accused. Now we have before us applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.

The applicant was the sole controller of the company which owned the restaurant business, leasing the building from the owner. It is clear that at the time of the fire the business was not doing at all well. The applicant's company had been running the business for about 11 months. He had guaranteed his company's payment of rent. By July 1997 the property was found to be in a run-down state. The monthly rental was $3,750. The rent for November 1997 was paid two weeks late and on 23 January 1998 the landlord sent a fax to the applicant (which was in his pocket at the time of the fire) complaining about the late payment of rent and the failure to honour a promise to set up a direct debit arrangement for the payment of rent and requiring that the overdue rent be paid at the latest by Tuesday 27 January.

There was a good deal of evidence that the restaurant had never done well while the applicant's company was running it. It was a large establishment, but the number of patrons was always small. By the time of the fire there was virtually no stock of food or liquor, and the business was moribund if not literally defunct. The company was being pressed by numerous trade creditors. It owed the bank a considerable sum of money on overdrawn accounts. On the night of the fire - which was, as I have said, a Saturday night - the restaurant did not have a single customer. The company's accounts showed that it had been trading at…

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 Mazur

Details

AGLC: R v Mazur [2000] VSCA 111
Case: [2000] VSCA 111
Decision Date: 8 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of R v Mazur was heard where the defendant, Mazur, stood accused of arson. The dispute revolved around whether the defendant's alleged false statements about his whereabouts at the time of the fire could be considered as evidence suggesting consciousness of guilt. The court was tasked with determining the weight that such evidence should carry in criminal proceedings.

The legal issues at hand included the admissibility and weight of evidence suggesting consciousness of guilt through false statements, as well as the appropriate sentencing for arson. The court needed to consider whether such evidence could be deemed reliable and relevant, and if so, how it should influence the sentencing. The court also had to determine if the previous case law, R. v. Perrone, still held relevance in the context of arson sentencing.

The court ruled that evidence suggesting consciousness of guilt, such as false statements about whereabouts, should not be entirely dismissed. It acknowledged that such evidence can be a commonsense indicator of guilt and should be considered in a balanced manner. The court concluded that immediate imprisonment is typically appropriate for arson offenses. Additionally, the court overruled the precedent set by R. v. Perrone, asserting that the circumstances of each case should be considered when determining the sentence for arson. The final orders included the defendant being sentenced to immediate imprisonment, reflecting the gravity of the arson offence.

Orders