Spatolisano v Hyde

Case [2009] ACTSC 161

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

VINCE SPATOLISANO v GEOFFREY DAVID HYDE
[2009] ACTSC 161 (9 December 2009)

APPEAL – appeal against conviction after plea of guilty – whether accused aware of defence – onus on accused to satisfy court that he did not appreciate the nature of the charge – court so satisfied – remitted to Magistrates Court for further hearing.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether fresh evidence admissible on appeal from a decision of the Magistrates Court – whether “necessary or expedient to do so in the interests of justice” – whether credible and admissible in court below – whether reasonable excuse for failure to adduce in court below – Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 214 – admission mandatory if elements satisfied – section does not apply to events occurring after sentencing.
CRIMINAL LAW – “move on” offence –  Crime Prevention Powers Act 1998 (ACT), s 4 – lack of particularity in police direction may go to question of “reasonable excuse” – whether return to proscribed area to defend vulnerable companion a “reasonable excuse” – return for a purpose inconsistent with continuation of violence may constitute a “reasonable excuse”.
CRIMINAL LAW – possession of offensive weapon – Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 380 – whether self-defence a “reasonable excuse” – question of circumstances and statutory interpretation.

Crime Prevention Powers Act 1998 (ACT), s 4

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 380(1)

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 6, 17

Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), Pt 3.10, ss 207, 208, 214

Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), s 13

Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 5193

Temoannui v Ford [2009] ACTSC 69

Travini v Starczewski [2009] ACTSC 123

Campbell v Fortey (1987) 85 FLR 462

Theodorelos v Nexus Projects Pty Ltd [2009] ACTSC 149

Gallagher v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 392

R v McIntee (1985) 38 SASR 432

Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510

Lawless v The Queen (1979) 142 CLR 659

R v Justices at Cloncurry; Ex parte Ryan [1978] Qd R 213

Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132

Bond v MacFarlane (1990) 102 FLR 38

R v Coffey (2003) 6 VR 543

R v Forde [1923] 2 KB 400

Liberti v The Queen (1991) 55 A Crim R 120

Gee v Hulbert and Ors [2002] ACTSC 118

Boag v The Queen (1994) 73 A Crim R 35

Taikato v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 454

Ganke v Corporate Affairs Commission (1990) 19 NSWLR 449

ON APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATES COURT

No. SCA 19 of 2009

Judge:              Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:               9 December 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No. SCA 19 of 2009
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

ON APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN:VINCE SPATOLISANO

Appellant

AND:GEOFFREY DAVID HYDE

Respondent

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  9 December 2009
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The appeal be upheld.

  1. The convictions and sentences imposed by the ACT Magistrates Court be set aside.

Continue reading Spatolisano v Hyde

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Spatolisano v Hyde [2009] ACTSC 161
Case
[2009] ACTSC 161
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Spatolisano v Hyde, the appellant, Spatolisano, was convicted by the ACT Magistrates Court of two offences under the Crime Prevention Powers Act 1998 (ACT) and the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The offences related to a "move on" direction and possession of an offensive weapon. Spatolisano appealed against his convictions and sentences on various grounds. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, presided over by Chief Justice Yates.

The appeal raised several legal issues, including the appellant's awareness of his defence at the time of pleading guilty, the admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal from the Magistrates Court, and the interpretation of "reasonable excuse" under the relevant statutes. The court had to determine whether the appellant was aware of his defence and whether he appreciated the nature of the charge. Additionally, the court considered whether fresh evidence could be admitted on appeal and if the elements for admissibility under the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), section 214, were satisfied.

The court found that the appellant had not been aware of his defence at the time of pleading guilty, and thus the convictions should be set aside. Regarding the fresh evidence, the court ruled that it was admissible as it was necessary or expedient to do so in the interests of justice. The evidence was credible and could have been adduced in the Magistrates Court, and there was a reasonable excuse for its failure to be presented earlier. The court also noted that a lack of particularity in the police direction might impact the question of a "reasonable excuse" and that returning to a proscribed area to defend a vulnerable companion could be considered a "reasonable excuse". However, returning for a purpose inconsistent with the continuation of violence might also constitute a "reasonable excuse".

The appeal was upheld, the convictions and sentences were set aside, and the charges were remitted to the ACT Magistrates Court for a new hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be upheld.

2. The convictions and sentences imposed by the ACT Magistrates Court be set aside.

3. The charges be remitted to the ACT Magistrates Court for hearing again.

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.