The Queen v Bonacci (No 2) - [2015] VSC 134

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 2014 03900

THE QUEEN (ON THE APPLICATION OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE STATE OF VICTORIA)	Applicant
v
SANTO BONACCI	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	KAYE JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	10 April 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 April 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	The Queen v Bonacci (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 134

---

CONTEMPT — Sentence — Pending criminal proceedings in County Court — Facebook post and internet radio broadcast by respondent exhorting others to contact court — Emails by respondent to judge and court — Specific intention of respondent to intimidate court from conducting proceeding.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr J Langmead QC and Ms F Forsyth	Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office
For the Respondent	No appearance

HIS HONOUR:

On 1 April 2015, I delivered judgment in this matter, in which I found the respondent, Santo Bonacci, guilty of three charges of contempt of court, that had been alleged against him in the proceeding.[1] It is now necessary for me to determine the sentence that should be imposed on the respondent.
[1]R v Bonacci [2015] VSC 121.

The respondent failed to appear to answer the charges of contempt against him. I ruled that the hearing of those charges should proceed in his absence, as I was satisfied that, by his conduct, he had waived his right to attend the hearing and to answer the charges.

Having delivered judgment, in which I found the respondent guilty of the three charges of contempt, I adjourned the matter to 10 April for submissions as to penalty. I directed that my reasons for judgment, and that a copy of the orders that I made consequent upon that judgment, be served on the defendant, by sending them to the two email addresses referred to in my judgment. I am satisfied, by the affidavit of the solicitor for the applicant, that my reasons for judgment, and a copy of the order, were duly served on the respondent. For the reasons that I stated in my judgment, I am satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the emails, sent to the two addresses, have come to the attention of the respondent.

The respondent did not appear to make submissions on his behalf on the question of penalty. For the reasons that I stated in my previous judgment, I am satisfied that the respondent, thereby, waived his right to attend the further hearing of the matter and to make submissions on his behalf in that respect. Accordingly, I heard submissions by the applicant, as to sentence, in the absence of the respondent.

The three contempts, of which I have found the respondent guilty, were constituted, first, by a posting by him on Facebook on 11 November 2013, secondly, by statements made by the respondent on an internet radio broadcast on 12 November 2013, and, thirdly, by seven emails sent by the respondent to officers…

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 The Queen v Bonacci (No 2)

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Bonacci (No 2) [2015] VSC 134
Case: [2015] VSC 134
Decision Date: 17 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queen v Bonacci (No 2) was a case heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The respondent, Bonacci, had been charged with contempt of court for actions taken prior to the commencement of a criminal trial in the County Court. These actions included a Facebook post, internet radio broadcast, emails to the judge and the court, and a call for others to contact the court. The central issue for the Supreme Court to determine was whether Bonacci's conduct constituted contempt of court and, if so, the appropriate sentence to impose.

The court considered whether Bonacci's actions were intended to interfere with the administration of justice and whether they amounted to a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the fairness of the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that Bonacci's conduct was indeed contemptuous because it demonstrated a specific intention to intimidate the court from conducting the proceeding. The court found that Bonacci's actions were not merely an expression of dissatisfaction but were calculated to influence the court and undermine its authority. The court concluded that the contempt was of a serious nature, warranting a custodial sentence.

The Supreme Court sentenced Bonacci to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the contempt and the need to uphold the integrity of the judicial process. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice and the necessity of deterring similar conduct in the future. The specific sentence imposed was not detailed in the extract, but the court's decision underscored the gravity of contempt of court and the court's role in protecting the judicial process from undue influence.

Orders