STORIC v Police - [2005] SASC 377

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
STORIC v POLICE
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Duggan
29 September 2005
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON PLEA OF GUILTY - GENERAL PRINCIPLES
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE
Appeal against conviction and sentence imposed by a magistrate - appeal against conviction on pleas of guilty - pleas of guilty not made in circumstances such as would require this court to quash the convictions - appeal against conviction dismissed - errors made by magistrate in sentencing - appeal against sentence allowed - sentence and non-parole period imposed by magistrate set aside - remitted for sentencing to Magistrates Court to be dealt with by another magistrate.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 s 134; Motor Vehicles Act 1959 s 74(1); Magistrates Act 1983 s 22, referred to.
Liberti (1991) 55 A Crim R 120; R v Murphy [1965] VR 187; R v Vella (1984) 14 A Crim R 90, applied.
R v Ford [1923] 2 KB 400, distinguished.
Soteriou v Police (2000) 210 LSJS 217, discussed.

STORIC v POLICE
[2005] SASC 377
Magistrates Appeal

Duggan J. The appellant pleaded guilty in the Whyalla Magistrates Court to a series of charges and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He has now appealed against conviction on three of the charges. He has also appealed against sentence on all charges.
The charges to which the appellant pleaded guilty are as follows:
1On the 5^th day of April, 2004 at Whyalla in the said State committed theft by obtaining or receiving property namely a video surveillance camera, of a value involving $2,500 or less the property of Tandy, or to make a serious encroachment on the owner’s proprietary rights. Section 134(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935.
2On the 5^th day of April, 2004 at Whyalla in the said State had in his possession personal property namely a power drill which either at the time of such possession, or at a subsequent time before making of this complaint in respect of such possession, was reasonably suspected of having been stolen or obtained by unlawful means. Section 41(1) of the Summary Offences Act, 1953.
3On the 9^th day of June, 2004 at Whyalla in the said State drove a motor vehicle of a particular class on a road namely Nicolson Avenue when not authorised to drive such a motor vehicle. Section 74(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1959. It is further alleged that the said driver had never been authorised under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1959 or the law of another State or Territory of the Commonwealth to drive a motor vehicle of such a class on a road.
4On the 1^st day of July, 2004 at Whyalla in the said…

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 STORIC v Police

Details

AGLC: STORIC v Police [2005] SASC 377
Case: [2005] SASC 377
Decision Date: 29 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Storic v Police involved an appeal by the defendant against both their conviction and the sentence imposed by a magistrate. The defendant, Storic, had entered pleas of guilty to charges brought against them, but subsequently sought to appeal both the conviction and the sentence. The appeal was heard in the relevant appellate court, which had to determine whether the convictions should stand and whether the sentence was appropriately imposed.

The primary legal issues for the court to address were whether the convictions should be quashed due to any procedural irregularities in the way the pleas of guilty were taken, and whether the sentence imposed was correct in law. Specifically, the court had to consider if the magistrate had erred in any way that would necessitate a new trial or an adjustment of the sentence. The court was tasked with ensuring that justice was properly served in both the conviction and sentencing processes.

Upon examining the case, the court found that there were no grounds to quash the pleas of guilty, and thus the convictions were upheld. However, the court identified several errors made by the magistrate in the sentencing process. These errors were deemed significant enough to warrant the setting aside of the original sentence. The court determined that a new sentencing hearing should be conducted by a different magistrate in the Magistrates Court, ensuring that the process was free from the identified errors.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against the conviction was dismissed, but the appeal against the sentence was allowed. The sentence and non-parole period imposed by the magistrate were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Magistrates Court for re-sentencing by a different magistrate. This decision underscores the importance of procedural correctness in both conviction and sentencing stages of criminal proceedings.

Orders