SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title:
Vunilagi v The Queen
Citation:
[2021] ACTCA 12
Hearing Dates:
17 – 18 May 2021
DecisionDate:
9 November 2021
Before:
Mossop, Loukas-Karlsson and Abraham JJ
Decision:
See [279]
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – Whether verdicts were unreasonable – whether trial judge could be satisfied of the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt – where challenge focussed on the reliability of the complainant’s evidence – held: ground dismissed – whether trial judge impermissibly and unfairly introduced evidence into reasoning – evidence to be considered in context – held: ground dismissed.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – APPEAL – Order for trial by judge alone without an accused’s consent – challenge to the validity of s 68BA of the Supreme CourtAct 1933 (ACT) – whether provision invalidated by Kable doctrine because it compromised the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court – whether the provision was beyond the power of the Legislative Assembly because the reference to “Supreme Court” in s 48A of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (Cth) required trials on indictment to be by jury – whether s 68BA is invalid by reason of incompatibility with s 80 of the Constitution – held: provision not invalid
[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 Vunilagi v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Vunilagi v The Queen [2021] ACTCA 12
Case
[2021] ACTCA 12
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal concerned Saimoni Vunilagi, Ismeli Vatanitawake, and Josefa Masivesi (the Appellants) against the Respondent, The Queen, following their convictions in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The Appellants challenged the reasonableness of the verdicts against them and argued that the trial judge had impermissibly introduced evidence into their reasoning. A further ground of appeal, raised by the intervenor, the Attorney-General of the Australian Capital Territory, concerned the constitutional validity of s 68BA of the *Supreme Court Act 1933* (ACT), which permitted trials by judge alone without the accused's consent.
The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the verdicts reached by the trial judge were unreasonable, and whether the trial judge's reasoning unfairly incorporated evidence. Additionally, the Court was required to determine if s 68BA of the *Supreme Court Act 1933* (ACT) was invalid. This involved considering whether the provision compromised the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court under the *Kable* doctrine, whether it exceeded the Legislative Assembly's power due to the implication of jury trials in s 48A of the *Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988* (Cth), and whether it was incompatible with s 80 of the Commonwealth Constitution.
The Court dismissed the grounds of appeal relating to the unreasonableness of the verdicts and the trial judge's reasoning, holding that the evidence was to be considered in its proper context. Regarding the constitutional challenge, the Court found that s 68BA of the *Supreme Court Act 1933* (ACT) was not invalid. The Court reasoned that the provision did not offend the *Kable* doctrine, did not exceed the Legislative Assembly's legislative power, and was not incompatible with s 80 of the Constitution. The Court's decision affirmed the validity of trials by judge alone in the ACT under the impugned provision.