R v Scardigno - [2014] SADC 169

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v SCARDIGNO & ANOR
[2014] SADC 169
Ruling of His Honour Judge Slattery
7 November 2014
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - ADJOURNMENT, STAY OF PROCEEDINGS OR ORDER RESTRAINING PROCEEDINGS - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - INFORMATION, INDICTMENT OR PRESENTMENT - JOINDER - JOINT OR SEPARATE TRIAL
Application by the accused Scardigno for a stay of prosecution in relation to Count 1 and severance of Counts 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 from the co-accused.
Application by the accused Stratis for a stay of proceedings in relation to Counts 4, 5 and 6, or alternatively, severance of Counts 4, 5 and 6 for separate hearing.
Held:
1. Both applications for stay are dismissed.
2. Order for severance of Counts 4, 5 and 6 for separate hearing against the accused Stratis.
Firearms Act 1977 (SA) s 11; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 34P; Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) ss 4, 32; Firearms Regulations 2008 (SA) r 5; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 278, referred to.
R v Austin (1995) 84 A Crim R 374; Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378; Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23; R v El Azzi (2001) 125 A Crim R 113; Rona v District Court (SA) (1995) 63 SASR 223; Rogers v R (1994) 181 CLR 251; R v Chapman [2008] SADC 158; R v Smith [1955] 1 VR 10; R v Harbach (1973) 6 SASR 427; R v Collie & Ors (1991) 56 SASR 302; R v Demirok [1976] VR 244; Webb; Hay v R (1944) 181 CLR 41; R v Gillard & Preston [2000] SASC 454, considered.

R v SCARDIGNO & ANOR
[2014] SADC 169

In this action there are three remaining defendants. A fourth defendant, Collings, was charged as follows:
Trafficking in a Large Commercial Quantity of a Controlled Drug. (Section 32(1) of the Controlled Substances Act, 1984).
Collings entered a guilty plea to that charge and has been dealt with by the court on sentence.
The three remaining defendants are charged as follows:
Phillip John Iskra and Susan Kellie Scardigno are charged with the following offence:
First Count
Statement of Offence
Trafficking in a Large Commercial Quantity of a Controlled Drug. (Section 32(1) of the Controlled Substances Act, 1984).
…
Phillip John Iskra is charged with the following offences:
Second Count
Statement of Offence
Trafficking in a Controlled Drug. (section 32(3) of the Controlled Substances Act, 1984).
…
Third Count
Statement of Offence
Possessing a Prescribed Drug Without a Licence. (section 18(3) of the Controlled Substances Act, 1984).
…
Apostolos Stratis is charged with the following offences:
Fourth Count
Statement of Offence
Possessing a Class H Firearm Without a Licence. (section 11(1) of the Firearms Act, 1977).
…
Fifth Count
Statement of Offence
Possessing a Class H Firearm Without a Licence. (Ibid).
…
Sixth Count
Statement of Offence
Possessing a Class H Firearm Without a Licence. (Ibid).

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 Scardigno

Details

AGLC: R v Scardigno [2014] SADC 169
Case: [2014] SADC 169
Decision Date: 7 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Scardigno was heard before the court and involved a dispute over the admissibility of evidence, as well as the appropriateness of a stay of proceedings. The defendant, Scardigno, was facing charges related to alleged criminal activities. The court was tasked with determining whether certain evidence should be excluded and whether the proceedings should be stayed.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were the admissibility of evidence obtained under questionable circumstances and the determination of whether a stay of proceedings was warranted. The court needed to assess whether the evidence met the legal standards for admissibility and whether a stay would be appropriate to address procedural fairness or other legal concerns.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the nature and source of the evidence in question. It was determined that the evidence was obtained in a manner that did not comply with legal standards, rendering it inadmissible. The court further considered the implications of the inadmissible evidence on the fairness of the trial and found that a stay of proceedings was necessary to rectify the situation. The court concluded that the admissibility of the evidence was a critical factor in ensuring a fair trial and that a stay would allow for the proper procedures to be followed.

The court ordered a stay of proceedings to address the issues of inadmissible evidence and to allow for a fair trial. This decision ensured that the defendant would not be prejudiced by the use of improper evidence and that the trial could proceed under proper legal standards.

Orders