TRIVETT -v- ZOCCOLI [2002] WASCA 138

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 138
Case No:	SJA:1032/2002	Heard:	13 MAY 2002
Coram:	EM HEENAN J	Delivered:	13/05/02
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Dismissal of complaint set aside and complaint remitted for hearing to Court of Petty Sessions
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	PETER TIM TRIVETT BRIAN PETER ZOCCOLI
Catchwords:	Courts Court of Petty Sessions Adjournment Discretion Factors for consideration Serious injustice to prosecution
Legislation:	Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 79, s 186, s 199
Case References:	Australian Coal and Shale Employees Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 74 CLR 621 Bennett v Councillor [2001] WASCA 342 Lowndes v R (1997) 195 CLR 665 Myers v Myers [1969] WAR 19 R v Jones [1971] VR 72 Vick v Drysdale [1981] WAR 321 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : TRIVETT -v- ZOCCOLI [2002] WASCA 138 CORAM : EM HEENAN J HEARD : 13 MAY 2002 DELIVERED : 13 MAY 2002 FILE NO/S : SJA 1032 of 2002 BETWEEN : PETER TIM TRIVETT

Appellant

AND

BRIAN PETER ZOCCOLI

Respondent

Catchwords:

Courts - Court of Petty Sessions - Adjournment - Discretion - Factors for consideration - Serious injustice to prosecution

Legislation:

Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 79, s 186, s 199

Result:

Appeal allowed

Dismissal of complaint set aside and complaint remitted for hearing to Court of Petty Sessions

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Ms L Petrusa

Respondent : Mr A E Monisse

Solicitors:

Appellant : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent : GC & KC Christou

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Australian Coal and Shale Employees Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 74 CLR 621
Bennett v Councillor [2001] WASCA 342
Lowndes v R (1997) 195 CLR 665
Myers v Myers [1969] WAR 19
R v Jones [1971] VR 72
Vick v Drysdale [1981] WAR 321

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 EM HEENAN J: This is an appeal by leave under the provisions of the Justices Act 1902 from the decision of his Worship Mr P G Thobaven, Stipendiary Magistrate, sitting in the Court of Petty Sessions at Joondalup on 11 February 2002, by which his Worship dismissed a complaint then pending before him after having refused an application for an adjournment made by the prosecuting police officer who had explained that the prosecution was not in a position to proceed for want of an essential witness. The order made by his Worship was that the proceedings should be dismissed and that there should be an order for costs in the amount of $1,715 against the complainant.

2 The charge that was before his Worship had been initiated by a complaint made on 20 June 2001 which alleged that on that day, the 20th day of June 2001, the respondent Brian Peter Zoccoli without consent was in the dwelling of Joy Marilyn Gillian and committed the offence of stealing contrary to s…

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 Trivett v Zoccoli

Details

AGLC: Trivett v Zoccoli [2002] WASCA 138
Case: [2002] WASCA 138
Decision Date: 13 MAY 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Trivett v Zoccoli, the appellant, Trivett, brought an appeal against the dismissal of a complaint filed against Zoccoli, who was the prosecutor. The complaint was initially dismissed by the Court of Petty Sessions on the basis of an adjournment, which the appellant contested. The dispute centres on whether the court exercised its discretion to adjourn the complaint appropriately, considering the potential for serious injustice to the prosecution.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Court of Petty Sessions had the authority to dismiss the complaint without a hearing, and if so, what factors should be considered in exercising such discretion. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the potential for serious injustice to the prosecution was a sufficient ground to dismiss the complaint without a hearing.

The court examined the factors that should be taken into account when deciding to adjourn a complaint. It held that the potential for serious injustice to the prosecution is a critical factor, and the court must carefully weigh this against other considerations. The court found that the dismissal of the complaint without a hearing was inappropriate as it failed to adequately consider the possibility of serious injustice to the prosecution. As such, the court exercised its discretion to allow the appeal and set aside the dismissal of the complaint. It further remitted the complaint for a hearing before the Court of Petty Sessions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Dismissal of complaint set aside and complaint remitted for hearing to Court of

Petty Sessions

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.