R v Trewin - [2015] ACTSC 157

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Trewin
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 157
Hearing Date(s):	10 June 2015
DecisionDate:	10 June 2015
Before:	Refshauge ACJ
Decision:	Matters CC2015/646; CC2015/648 and CC2015/994 be remitted to the Magistrates Court to be dealt with according to law.
Category:	Principal Judgment
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Prosecution - Remission of transferred matters to the Magistrates Court
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 26, 30, 116(3), Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 603(5), 616(5), 621 Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT), s 171(1)(b) Firearms Act 1996 (ACT), s 249(1) Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 94(2) Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), Pt 8, s 68CA, 68F
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Simon Trewin (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel Mr J Hiscox (Crown) Rachel Bird & Company (Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) No Appearance (Accused)
File Number(s):	SCC 87 of 2015 SCC 88 of 2015

REFSHAUGE ACJ:

On 21 April 2015, Simon Trewin was committed for trial on charges of threat to kill contrary to s 30 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and three offences relating to drugs, being a charge of possessing equipment for cultivating a controlled plant, contrary to s 621 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT); cultivating a traffickable quantity of cannabis, contrary to s 616(5) of the Criminal Code; and trafficking in a traffickable quantity of cannabis contrary to s 603(5) of the Criminal Code.

At the same time, under s 94(2) of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), a number of related offences were also transferred to this Court, being a count of intentionally causing damage, other than by fire or explosive, contrary to s 116(3) of the Crimes Act; a count of possession of ammunition, contrary to s 249(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT); a count of assaulting Cynthia Rakic, contrary to s 26 of the Crimes Act; and a count of possessing a prohibited substance, greater than 25 grams of cannabis contrary to s 171(1)(b) of the Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT).

The Crown has now decided not to proceed with the prosecution of the charge of threat to kill and I received, and permitted to be filed in court, a Notice Declining to Proceed in that matter.

That leaves, however, the three drug-related matters for which Mr Trewin has been committed to this Court to proceed as a trial in this Court. It is submitted that it is no longer appropriate for the non-drug matters, that were transferred under s 94 of the Magistrates Court Act, to be dealt with in this Court and I have been asked to remit them to the Magistrates Court under s 68F of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT). The Court is empowered, at any time, to remit such offences to the Magistrates Court to be dealt with in that Court.

I have been asked therefore to remit to the Magistrates Court the offences of intentionally…

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 Trewin

Details

AGLC: R v Trewin [2015] ACTSC 157
Case: [2015] ACTSC 157
Decision Date: 10 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Trewin, was convicted in the Magistrates Court of various drug-related offences and was subsequently prosecuted in the County Court. The Crown sought to remit three matters to the Magistrates Court, which the County Court declined to do. Trewin appealed the decision, arguing that the County Court should have remitted the matters. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal.

The central issue before the court was whether the County Court had the discretion to remit matters to the Magistrates Court, and if so, whether it exercised that discretion correctly. The court needed to determine whether the Crown's application for remission was valid and whether the County Court had the power to remit the matters in question.

The Court of Appeal held that the County Court did indeed have the discretion to remit matters to the Magistrates Court, in accordance with section 14 of the County Court Act 1958. The court found that the Crown's application for remission was valid and that the County Court had failed to exercise its discretion. As a result, the Court of Appeal remitted the matters to the Magistrates Court, to be dealt with according to law. The appeal was thus allowed.

In light of the Court of Appeal's decision, matters CC2015/646; CC2015/648 and CC2015/994 were remitted to the Magistrates Court to be dealt with according to law.

Orders

Orders of the court

Matters CC2015/646; CC2015/648 and CC2015/994 be remitted to the Magistrates Court to be dealt with according to law.

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.