Rinaldi v Watts - [2003] VSC 2

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 6068 of 2002

DALE RINALDI	Appellant
v
SGT CRAIG WATTS	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	KELLAM J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	20 November 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 February 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Rinaldi v Watts
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 2

---

CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal from Magistrates’ Court - Confiscation Act 1997 s.123 - Whether “proceeds of crime” can include the subject matter of the crime or whether such proceeds must be transformed or converted into another form - Summary Offences Act 1966 s.26 - Confiscation Act 1997 ss.3, 123.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr S. Kennedy	Katsis Purcell Anthony
For the Respondent	Mr R. Webster	Office of Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

This proceeding is an appeal pursuant to s.92 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1989 on a question of law from a decision of a magistrate sitting at Moe on 16 May 2001.

Dale Rinaldi (“the appellant”) appeared before the Moe Magistrates' Court on 15 May 2001 charged with three offences under the Firearms Act 1996 to which he pleaded guilty. In addition, he was charged with an offence pursuant to s.123 of the Confiscation Act 1997 (“the Act”) in that he “ … at Drouin on the 17^th day of November 2001, did possess property namely one bolt action .303 rifle and one lever action .410 shotgun that may reasonably be suspected of being proceeds of a crime.”

The appellant pleaded not guilty to that charge. The learned Magistrate convicted the appellant of the offence pursuant to s.123 of the Act.

The presentation of the appeal before me was unsatisfactory in a number of ways. The order of Master Evans dated 14 June 2002 (but authenticated on 20 June 2002) is stated to rely upon an affidavit sworn by the appellant on 17 June 2002. The affidavit in question was before me upon the hearing of the appeal but counsel for the appellant was unable to produce the exhibits to the affidavit. Copies of some of the exhibits, being Exhibit A, a copy of the charge under s.123 of the Act; Exhibit B, a transcript of submissions made by counsel for the appellant to the learned Magistrate; Exhibit D, a transcript of the learned Magistrate’s findings; and Exhibit E, a copy of the Certified Extract from the Magistrates' Court Register were provided to me by counsel for the respondent. Exhibit C, being copies of the tapes of the proceeding before the Magistrate was not produced before me, nor were any transcripts of the evidence given before the learned Magistrate.

However, the failure to produce any evidence before me as to the evidence given before the Magistrate does not prevent me from dealing with the question of law as stated by the Master pursuant to O.58.09 which is:

“Did the learned magistrate misdirect himself as to the proper interpretation of the expression ‘proceeds of crime’ in…

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 Rinaldi v Watts

Details

AGLC: Rinaldi v Watts [2003] VSC 2
Case: [2003] VSC 2
Decision Date: 4 February 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Rinaldi v Watts, the appellant, Rinaldi, appealed against a decision of the Magistrates' Court which found that the subject matter of a crime was not capable of being "proceeds of crime" under the Confiscation Act 1997. The dispute involved the confiscation of certain assets by the Magistrates' Court under the provisions of the Confiscation Act 1997, following a conviction for an offence under the Summary Offences Act 1966. Rinaldi argued that the Magistrates' Court erred in finding that the subject matter of the crime could not be considered as "proceeds of crime" under the Confiscation Act 1997.

The legal issues before the court were whether the term "proceeds of crime" in section 123 of the Confiscation Act 1997 includes the subject matter of the crime itself or whether such proceeds must be transformed or converted into another form. The court was also required to consider the interpretation of sections 3 and 123 of the Confiscation Act 1997, and how these provisions interact with section 26 of the Summary Offences Act 1966. The court had to determine the scope and meaning of "proceeds of crime" in the context of the Confiscation Act 1997 and whether the Magistrates' Court's interpretation was consistent with the legislative framework.

The court considered the relevant provisions of the Confiscation Act 1997 and the Summary Offences Act 1966, and concluded that the term "proceeds of crime" does not include the subject matter of the crime itself but rather refers to assets that have been transformed or converted into another form as a result of the crime. The court held that the Magistrates' Court was correct in finding that the subject matter of the crime was not capable of being considered as "proceeds of crime" under the Confiscation Act 1997. The court found that the interpretation of the term "proceeds of crime" was consistent with the legislative framework and did not include the subject matter of the crime. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The court's decision clarified the meaning of "proceeds of crime" under the Confiscation Act 1997, and confirmed that the Magistrates' Court's interpretation of the relevant provisions was correct. The court's reasoning and outcome provide guidance to practitioners on the interpretation of the term "proceeds of crime" and the application of the Confiscation Act 1997 in cases involving the confiscation of assets following a criminal conviction.

Orders