Warren v Energy Safe Victoria - [2025] VSCA 182

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2025 0114

LUKE THOMAS WARREN	Applicant
v
ENERGY SAFE VICTORIA	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	Kidd JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	Determined on the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	8 August 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 182

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Procedure – Purported appeal to the Court of Appeal against conviction and sentence where County Court’s appellate jurisdiction was exercised – Registrar refused to accept documents for filing – Application under r 1A.04(4) of the Supreme Court (Criminal Procedure) Rules 2017 to direct Registrar to accept documents for filing – Appeal incompetent – Application refused.

Supreme Court (Criminal Procedure) Rules 2017, r 1A.04(4).

James v English [2023] VSCA 46; Trajkovski v The King [2024] VSCA 271, applied.

---

KIDD JA:

Procedural background

On 30 March 2025, the applicant, Luke Thomas Warren, appeared before the Magistrates’ Court in relation to 52 charges of giving false information to Energy Safe Victoria. The applicant pleaded guilty to charges one to 51 (inclusive) and was fined without conviction. Charge 52 was discharged as there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction.
Subsequently, the applicant appealed against conviction and sentence to the County Court.
On 30 May 2025, her Honour Judge Dalziel — sitting in the County Court’s appellate jurisdiction — set aside the orders made in the Magistrates’ Court. The applicant contested the charges. The judge found that 44 charges of giving false information to Energy Safe Victoria were proven. The applicant was convicted and ordered to pay an aggregate fine of $8,000 and costs of $5,000.
On 12 June 2025, the applicant filed the following documents with the Court of Appeal Registry:
•A notice of application for leave to appeal against conviction under s 274 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009. The applicant seeks to appeal against the conviction imposed upon him in this matter by Judge Dalziel in the County Court.
•A notice of application for leave to appeal against sentence under s 278 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009. The applicant seeks to appeal against the sentence imposed upon him in this matter by Judge Dalziel in the County Court.
The applicant’s notices for leave to appeal were rejected by the Registrar.
The Court of Appeal Registry sent an electronic communication to the applicant advising that the documents had not been accepted for filing and the reason for not doing so.
In an electronic communication, on 16 June 2025, via RedCrest, the Registrar gave the following reason:
Once a person has exercised their right to appeal from the Magistrates’ Court to the County Court under s 254 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, their rights of appeal are — save for the exception found in s 283(2) — exhausted (see James v English [2023] VSCA 46 and Trajkovski v The King [2024] VSCA 271). The exception found in s 283(2) does not apply to you because you were not sentenced to a term…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Warren v Energy Safe Victoria and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] VSCA 182
Decision Date: 8 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Warren v Energy Safe Victoria, the appellant, Warren, sought to appeal against his conviction and sentence issued by the County Court of Victoria. The appeal was lodged with the Court of Appeal, but the Registrar of the Court declined to accept the documents submitted for filing. Warren then applied under rule 1A.04(4) of the Supreme Court (Criminal Procedure) Rules 2017 to direct the Registrar to accept the documents. The central legal issue before the court was whether the application was an appropriate remedy under the rules, given that the County Court had already exercised its appellate jurisdiction.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the Supreme Court (Criminal Procedure) Rules 2017 and considered the authorities of James v English and Trajkovski v The King. It found that the County Court had correctly exercised its appellate jurisdiction and that the application was, therefore, an incompetent appeal. The court held that the appropriate remedy for Warren would have been to seek special leave to appeal directly to the Court of Appeal, rather than lodging the appeal in the first instance with the Court of Appeal. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The court concluded that the appeal was not within its jurisdiction, and the application was refused. The court emphasised the importance of following the correct procedural steps when appealing a decision of the County Court. The final order of the court was that the application under rule 1A.04(4) of the Supreme Court (Criminal Procedure) Rules 2017 was dismissed, and the appeal was deemed incompetent.

Orders