Legal Research
Cases
Simon Mareangareu v The Queen

Simon Mareangareu v The Queen

Case [2019] VSCA 101 7 May 2019

Appeal

Breach of Contract

Common Assault

Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice

Judicial Review

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2018 0206
S APCR 2018 0216

SIMON MAREANGAREU	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST, HARGRAVE and EMERTON JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	7 May 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 May 2019
DATE OF REASONS:	8 May 2019
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSCA 101
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Mareangareu (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Morrish, 21 June 2018 (Conviction); [2018] VCC 1181 (Sentence))

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Police officer convicted of common assault and attempting to pervert the course of justice – Whether common assault an alternative to intentionally causing injury – Whether prosecution improperly split its case – Whether judge’s comments on facts occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice – Whether conviction for attempting to pervert the course of justice inconsistent with acquittals for perjury – Appeal allowed – Judgment of acquittal entered.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr T Kassimatis QC with Ms C Dwyer	Tony Hargreaves & Partners
For the Respondent	Mr J Gullaci	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
HARGRAVE JA
EMERTON JA:

Introduction

Simon Mareangareu, the applicant, and Dennis Gundrill, were members of Victoria Police.

When on mobile patrol duty together on Christmas Day 2014, at about 2.30 am they encountered two youths, Stuart Laird, aged 16, and Kyan Foster, aged 17 (for convenience, ‘Laird’ and ‘Foster’ respectively), in the vicinity of a 7-Eleven store in Canterbury Road, Vermont. What occurred during that encounter was the subject of dispute between the applicant and Gundrill on the one hand, and Laird and Foster on the other. One thing that is certain, however, is that, having arrested the two youths, the applicant ultimately charged them with assaulting an emergency worker on duty, resisting arrest and possession of cannabis.

In circumstances which we will later discuss in more detail, the applicant’s and Gundrill’s encounter with, and the arrest and charging of, Laird and Foster led ultimately to the two police themselves facing charges.

Hence, an indictment filed in the County Court charged the applicant with intentionally causing injury to Foster (one charge — charge 1); falsely imprisoning Foster (one charge — charge 2); attempting to pervert the course of justice (two charges — charges 3 and 4); and perjury (three charges — charges 5, 6 and 7). Gundrill was charged on the same indictment with falsely imprisoning Laird (charge 8); attempting to pervert the course of justice (charges 9 and 10); and perjury (charge 11).

After a 23 day trial, a jury found the applicant guilty of common assault (as a purported alternative to the first charge, intentionally causing injury) and one of the two charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice (charge 4), but not guilty of all other charges. Gundrill was acquitted on all charges.

Following a plea on 31 July 2018, on 23 August 2018 the trial judge sentenced the applicant to be imprisoned for 12 months on charge 4, attempting to…

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 Simon Mareangareu v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Mareangareu v The Queen [2019] VSCA 101
Case: [2019] VSCA 101
Decision Date: 7 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Simon Mareangareu was convicted of common assault and attempting to pervert the course of justice by a jury in the Local Court, with the appeal brought before the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The appellant, a police officer, was charged with these offences following incidents where he allegedly assaulted an individual and then attempted to pervert the course of justice by providing a false statement to an investigating officer. The trial judge found the appellant guilty of both charges, but the appellant appealed against his convictions on several grounds.

The court was required to determine whether common assault could be an alternative to the charge of intentionally causing injury, whether the prosecution had improperly split its case, whether the trial judge’s comments on the facts had led to a substantial miscarriage of justice, and whether the conviction for attempting to pervert the course of justice was inconsistent with the appellant's acquittals for perjury. The court found that the prosecution had indeed split its case, and that this constituted a fundamental error in the trial. Furthermore, the court found that the trial judge’s comments on the facts had the potential to occasion a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court also found that the conviction for attempting to pervert the course of justice was inconsistent with the acquittals for perjury, as the acts alleged in the charges were not independent of each other.

The court allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions, entering judgments of acquittal on both counts. The court found that the appellant's convictions were not supported by the evidence, and that the errors in the trial process were such that they had a substantial effect on the outcome of the trial. The appellant's appeal was successful, and his convictions were quashed.

Orders