DPP v Verigos [2004] VSC 97

DPP v Verigos [2004] VSC 97 - VSC 2004 case summary — Zoe

[6]

* At about 5.30 pm on Tuesday 4 March 2003, the victim (who was a woman of 52 years of age) was at her home in East Geelong with her defacto partner. She was preparing to leave the premises when she heard the front door bell ring and she opened the front door. As she did so, she saw the accused standing in the doorway. * The accused dangled a pink clip in front of the victim and asked her: "Would you like this on your head against your head?". The accused then held the clip up as he stepped onto the doorstep. The victim had no idea what the accused was referring to and told the accused to go away. The accused ignored the instruction and moved forward into the doorway and entered the house where he then stood in the hallway. * The accused then grabbed the victim's hair with his left hand and forcefully pulled her head towards the ground and pushed backwards up against the wall in the hallway. The accused kept asking the victim: " Do you want to, do you want to, do you?". The victim feared for her safety and screamed for her defacto partner to come and help her. * The victim's defacto partner then walked out from the living room at the rear of the house and saw the accused holding the victim by the hair. He grabbed a broomstick and approached the accused and asked him what he was doing and told him to let go of the victim. The accused loosened his grip on the victim's hair and asked the victim: "Where is my girl?". At that time the victim saw the accused holding a silver coloured smooth bladed knife in his right hand and she became more concerned for her safety. The accused started to back out of the door and said: "If she's here and I know she's here, I'll come back if she's here. I'll be back". The accused had no permission to enter the premises. * The accused then walked sideways into the front yard towards the road and entered his vehicle and drove off along the road. The ordeal made the victim feel very scared and threatened and she believed she was going to be physically injured, sexually assaulted or robbed. * As the accused left, the victim inquired who or what was his girl but the accused didn't reply. The victim didn't receive any physical injuries during the attack nor did she provoke or intimidate the accused. Prior to 4 March 2000, she had never met the accused or seen the accused so far as she was aware. * When interviewed by police on 7 March 2003, the accused denied committing aggravated burglary, assaulting the victim with a weapon or unlawfully assaulting her. The explanation he gave during the tape recorded interview was that the victim had stolen his dog and he was trying to recover the dog from her.

[9]

"...there are two arguments. The argument on the one hand is that under the provisions of the schedule, the court is empowered to hear an aggravated burglary, and an aggravated burglary by definition, is one which encompasses an assault. If it encompasses an assault with an intent to steal, it is plain, the court has power to hear that sort of case. The argument is that if it involves a lesser crime, that is just an assault without an intent to steal, even though the assault may be in factual terms, identical, then this court cannot hear such a case summarily, which would appear to be nonsense, given that the court has clearly got power to hear a case of greater gravity, why would it be eliminated from hearing a case of lesser gravity. That is one argument. The other argument is that the schedule provision says that the court can only hear a case of aggravated burglary if the offence involves an intent to steal, which doesn't exceed $25,000 and if it doesn't involve that intent to steal then it is excluded and that is the literal interpretation of that particular paragraph. My view is though, that in construing that paragraph, paragraph 19, you must look at paragraphs that surround it, 16, 17, 18 and 19 and each of them deal (sic) with theft, robbery and burglary and then aggravated burglary and each of them say (sic) that this court has got power to deal with theft if the amount stolen doesn't exceed $25,000, robbery, same, $25,000, burglary, same, $25,000 aggravated burglary, same $25,000. What the legislature is doing is saying, not that this court is prevented from hearing a case of aggravated burglary or is allowed to hear a case of aggravated burglary, I should say, if the offence involves an intent to steal property, but if the offence involves an intent to steal property less than $25,000, including one that involves no intent to steal, in my view, ought to be a matter that is included in what is intended by the legislature. The intention is to make the cut off $25,000, not an intention to steal with an aggravated burglary. To construe it in that manner, in my view, would be nonsensical and wouldn't make sense because it would mean that this court wouldn't have power to hear a lesser offence while it has got power to hear a greater offence." (My emphasis.)

[33]

Section 77 of the Crimes Act 1958 was repealed by s. 7 of the Justices (Amendment) Act 1962, and in effect was replaced and expanded by s. 8 of that Act, by the insertion in the Justices Act 1962 of a new s. 102A. That section continued the jurisdiction to deal summarily with offences of larceny and embezzlement; and offences contrary to s. 331 of the Crimes Act (of receiving stolen property where the amount or value of the property alleged to have been received did not exceed five hundred pounds); and offences contrary to s. 187 of the Crimes Act (of obtaining money by false pretences, if the amount of the debt or liability alleged to have been incurred did not exceed five hundred pounds); and offences contrary to ss. 22 or 34 of the Pawnbrokers Act (of illegally pawning where the value of the article pledged or to which the pledge-ticket referred did not exceed five hundred pounds). It also added jurisdiction to deal summarily with offences contrary to s. 134 of the Crimes Act (of break and enter (other than a dwelling house) if the amount or value of the property the subject matter of the offence did not exceed five hundred pounds)[1]; offences contrary to s. 188 of the Crimes Act (of obtaining delivery of property by false pretences where the value of the money, chattel or valuable security alleged to have been paid or delivered did not exceed five hundred pounds)[2]; and offences contrary to s. 135 of the Crimes Act (of break and enter (other than a place of worship or dwelling house) with intent to commit a felony)[3]; and offences of wounding, contrary to s. 19 of the Crimes Act[4]; and offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s. 37 of the Crimes Act[5]; and offences of indecent assault contrary to s. 55(1) of the Crimes Act[6]. The new section did not, however, confer any jurisdiction to deal summarily with a charge of burglary contrary to s. 128 of the Crimes Act (which is to say, entering a dwelling-house with intent to commit a felony therein or being in such dwelling-house, committing a felony and breaking out by night)[7].

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (78 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (8)

Cases Cited (6)