R v Stott - [2017] ACTSC 126

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Stott
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 126
Hearing Dates:	2, 5 June 2017
DecisionDate:	6 June 2017
Before:	Penfold J
Decision:	The application for the issue of a warrant for the arrest of Charlie Vo is refused.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Warrants, Arrests, Search, Seizure and Incidental Powers – Witnesses – subpoena unable to be served on witness – application by Crown for arrest warrant – prosecutor provided draft warrant purporting to be in approved form – no approved form for warrant of the kind sought – no express legislative power for Supreme Court to issue warrant where subpoena not served – inherent power of court relied on – whether inherent power of court permitted issue of warrant for arrest of witness unaware of requirement to appear – whether Human Rights Act permitted reliance on inherent power to exercise warrant in absence of “procedures established by law”.
Legislation Cited:	Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 194 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), s 65, Dictionary cl 4 Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), ss 18, 30 Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), ss 63, 64 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) ss 20, 70A
Cases Cited:	Cha v Oh (No. 22) (Part 2) [2009] NSWDC 300 Photi v Target Australia Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2007] NSWDC 302; 6 DCLR (NSW) 122 R v Vo [2016] ACTSC 157 The Queen v Kylie Anne Bullock [2013] ACTSC 274
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Sharon Stott (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel Mr D Sahu Khan (Crown) Mr J Maher (Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Law (Accused)
File Number:	SCC 107 of 2015

Background

In March 2016, Sharon Stott was tried on charges of:

(a)trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely methylamphetamine; and
(b)unauthorised possession of a prohibited weapon.

Charlie Vo was also charged with offences arising from the same circumstances. Shortly before the trial of the two accused was due to begin, Mr Vo pleaded guilty to a new charge. He was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, which had been reduced from 22 months by a two-month discount for his guilty plea and an eight-month discount for his undertaking to give evidence in Ms Stott’s trial (R v Vo [2016] ACTSC 157).

Mr Vo was expected to be a key witness at Ms Stott’s trial; he had been present in Ms Stott’s home, with Ms Stott and one of her children, when police executed a search warrant at the home, and seized drugs and large amounts of cash from several locations in the house. Mr Vo made comments to police that were largely exculpatory in relation to his role in relation to the drugs and the money, and in due course he was subpoenaed to give evidence at Ms Stott’s trial.

The defence case, however, was that Ms Stott knew nothing about the drugs or the larger amount of cash seized and…

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 Stott

Details

AGLC: R v Stott [2017] ACTSC 126
Case: [2017] ACTSC 126
Decision Date: 6 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Stott involved the Crown applying for a warrant for the arrest of a witness, Charlie Vo, who had failed to appear as subpoenaed. The legal issues before the court were whether the Supreme Court had the inherent power to issue a warrant for the arrest of a witness who was unaware of the requirement to appear and whether the Human Rights Act permitted reliance on the inherent power of the court to issue a warrant in the absence of "procedures established by law". The court held that there was no express legislative power for the Supreme Court to issue a warrant where a subpoena had not been served. However, the court found that it had an inherent power to issue such a warrant. The court also considered whether the Human Rights Act permitted reliance on the inherent power of the court to exercise a warrant in the absence of "procedures established by law". The court found that it did not. The application for the issue of a warrant for the arrest of Charlie Vo was refused.

The court found that there was no express legislative power for the Supreme Court to issue a warrant where a subpoena had not been served. However, the court found that it had an inherent power to issue such a warrant. The court considered the inherent power of the court to compel attendance before it and the need to ensure that justice was done in the case. The court found that the inherent power of the court to issue a warrant for the arrest of a witness who was unaware of the requirement to appear was necessary to ensure that justice was done in the case. The court also considered whether the Human Rights Act permitted reliance on the inherent power of the court to exercise a warrant in the absence of "procedures established by law". The court found that it did not. The court held that the power to issue a warrant for the arrest of a witness who was unaware of the requirement to appear was not a power that was "established by law" within the meaning of the Human Rights Act. The application for the issue of a warrant for the arrest of Charlie Vo was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for the issue of a warrant for the arrest of Charlie Vo is refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.