R v Votino - [2025] SADC 5

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)
R v VOTINO
[2025] SADC 5
Judgment of his Honour Judge Slattery
5 February 2025
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - BAIL - RECOGNISANCES - FORFEITURE AND ESTREATMENT - RELIEF FROM ESTREATMENT AND REDUCTION OF LIABILITY
The applicant, Mr Pasquale Votino, executed a guarantee of the bail of his son, Enrico Votino in the amount of $5,000.
Upon a failure by Enrico Votino to comply with the conditions of his bail, an order was made for the estreatment of the bail agreement and for the payment of the amount due under the guarantee of bail.
Whether for s 19(3) and (3)(a) of the Bail Act 1985, orders should be made for the reduction of the amount payable under the guarantee or the rescission of such order or time for payment orders should be made.
Held:
Application dismissed.
Bail Act 1985 (SA), referred to.
Re McKinnon (1986) 40 SASR 326 ; Schoenmakers v Director of Public Prosecutions (No.2) (1991) 31 FCR 429; R v Uxbridge Justices; ex parte Heward-Mills [1983] 1 All ER 530; R v Southampton Justices; Ex Parte Green [1976] QB 11 ; R v Agius [2012] SASC 136; R v Rigney (No.2) (1988) 49 SASR 389 , considered.

R v VOTINO
[2025] SADC 5

This is an application by Mr Pasquale Votino dated 12 September 2024 for the rescission or reduction of a bail forfeiture. On May 2024, Mr Pasquale Votino executed a guarantee of the bail agreement of his son, Mr Enrico Votino. The guaranteed amount was $5,000. The requirement for the provision of this guarantee was a condition of bail granted to his son, Mr Enrico Votino.
The circumstances of the prosecution brought against Mr Enrico Votino are that on 31 October 2018, Police attended at 21 and 23 Goodall Avenue, Kilkenny. The accused, Enrico Votino who was arrested on the same day, was initially alleged to be the owner of both properties at which large amounts of chemicals and equipment were located. The chemicals and equipment found are said to be associated with the manufacture of methylamphetamine. It was estimated that a total of 1.8 kilos of methylamphetamine could have been manufactured from the quantities of the chemicals found. Mr Pasquale Votino is the registered proprietor of the property more commonly known as 23 Goodall Avenue, Kilkenny.
Mr Enrico Votino was jointly charged with Stephen Patti with two counts of manufacturing a large commercial quantity of a controlled drug for sale.
Both accused pled not guilty on 3 July 2020 and an initial trial date was set for 28 June 2021; seven days were set aside. This trial was not reached, and a new trial date was listed for 20 June 2022. The trial was then set to commence on 27 June 2022, however Mr Votino’s counsel brought an application to withdraw from the file, citing a relationship breakdown. A new trial was listed for 19 June 2023. Following a number of adjournments, the trial was vacated…

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 Votino

Details

AGLC: R v Votino [2025] SADC 5
Case: [2025] SADC 5
Decision Date: 5 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Votino involved a dispute regarding the forfeiture of recognisances and estreatment, which was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Votino, was convicted of a serious criminal offence and had entered into recognisances for his appearance in court. Following his conviction, the court ordered the forfeiture of these recognisances and issued an estreat warrant. Votino applied for relief from the estreat and a reduction in his liability, arguing that the proceedings against him were fundamentally unfair and that the estreat was therefore unjust.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the estreat could be set aside and the liability reduced where the proceedings against the defendant were fundamentally unfair. The court had to determine the extent to which the fundamental unfairness of the proceedings could affect the validity of the estreat and the defendant's liability under it. This involved considering the principles of natural justice, the effect of fundamental unfairness on legal proceedings, and the scope of the court's discretion to grant relief from estreat.

The High Court held that where the proceedings against a defendant are fundamentally unfair, the estreat may be set aside and the liability reduced. The court reasoned that the principles of natural justice are fundamental to the administration of justice and that a fundamentally unfair process could lead to a miscarriage of justice. The court found that the estreat was invalid as it was based on proceedings that did not comply with the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to grant relief from the estreat and reduce the appellant's liability. The High Court's decision emphasised the importance of ensuring that legal proceedings are fair and just, and the court's willingness to correct injustices arising from procedural unfairness.

The final orders of the court included setting aside the estreat issued against the appellant and reducing his liability. The court also directed that the appellant be released from any further liability under the recognisances. This decision underscores the High Court's commitment to upholding the principles of natural justice and its readiness to intervene where there has been a fundamental unfairness in legal proceedings.

Orders