Legal Research
Cases
Tran v Stevenson

Tran v Stevenson

Case [2021] VSCA 198 14 July 2021

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2021 0056

ANTHONY TRAN	Applicant
v
ANDREW STEVENSON	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	NIALL and WALKER JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	Determined on the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 July 2021
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSCA 198
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	Tran v Stevenson (Unreported, County Court, Judge Doyle, 31 March 2021)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Interlocutory appeal – Application for review of refusal to certify interlocutory decisions under s 295 of Criminal Procedure Act 2008 – Where decisions made by County Court judge in course of an appeal from Magistrates’ Court – Whether Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to entertain application for review – Application incompetent – Ruizv The Queen [2021] VSCA 154, considered – Criminal Procedure Act 2008 ss 295, 296, 297.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
No appearances

NIALL JA
WALKER JA:

On 21 September 2019, following a hearing in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, the applicant, Mr Tran, was convicted of eight offences. The offences were indictable offences but were tried summarily. Mr Tran subsequently appealed against his conviction and sentence in the County Court.

Prior to the hearing of the appeal in the County Court, Mr Tran contended that the judge had made certain interlocutory decisions, to which Mr Tran objected. He wished to appeal those interlocutory decisions pursuant to div 4 of pt 6.3 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (‘the Act’) and so he sought certification of those decisions pursuant to s 295 of the Act. The trial judge did not certify the decisions. Mr Tran then sought to file an application in this Court, through RedCrest, for review of the trial judge’s refusal to certify, pursuant to s 296 of the Act.

The Judicial Registrar of this Court (‘the Registrar’) refused to accept Mr Tran’s application for filing, pursuant to r 1A.04(2)(a) of the Supreme Court (Criminal Procedure) Rules 2017 (‘the Rules’). That was because the Registrar considered that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal in relation to a decision taken in the course of an appeal from the Magistrates’ Court to the County Court. Mr Tran has objected to the Registrar’s decision. Pursuant to r 1A.04(4) of the Rules, we directed that the Registrar accept the document for filing. However, because the Registrar had raised a question as to the Court’s jurisdiction to entertain an interlocutory appeal of this kind, we also directed that the parties file submissions on the question of jurisdiction. The parties were informed that the Court would decide the question of jurisdiction on the papers.

Having considered the parties’ submissions, we have concluded that the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain Mr Tran’s application and that the application should therefore be refused. This Court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory decision made in the course of an appeal from the Magistrates’ Court to the County Court. Our reasons for that conclusion are set out below.

Background

As noted above, Mr Tran,…

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 Tran v Stevenson

Details

AGLC: Tran v Stevenson [2021] VSCA 198
Case: [2021] VSCA 198
Decision Date: 14 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tran brought an application for review against Stevenson in the Court of Appeal, seeking to overturn a decision made by a County Court judge during an appeal from the Magistrates’ Court. The crux of the dispute was whether the Court of Appeal had the authority to consider an application for review of interlocutory decisions made by the County Court judge under section 295 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2008. The applicants argued that the refusal to certify the interlocutory decisions constituted a significant error that warranted appellate intervention.

The legal issue before the court was whether the Court of Appeal possessed the jurisdiction to entertain an application for review concerning interlocutory decisions made by a County Court judge in the course of an appeal from the Magistrates’ Court. The applicants contended that the Court of Appeal should have the power to review such decisions to ensure that justice was correctly administered. However, the court had to determine whether the statutory framework of the Criminal Procedure Act 2008 supported this proposition.

The court examined the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 2008, specifically sections 295, 296, and 297, and found that the legislation did not grant the Court of Appeal the jurisdiction to review interlocutory decisions made by the County Court judge in the context of an appeal from the Magistrates’ Court. The court relied on the precedent established in Ruiz v The Queen [2021] VSCA 154, which held that the Court of Appeal does not have the authority to review such decisions. Consequently, the application for review was deemed incompetent.

The court dismissed the application, confirming that it lacked the jurisdiction to review the interlocutory decisions made by the County Court judge. As a result, the applicants' appeal was unsuccessful, and the original decisions stood.

Orders