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

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

1. 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.
2. Subsequently, the applicant appealed against conviction and sentence to the County Court.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The applicant's notices for leave to appeal were rejected by the Registrar.
6. 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.
7. 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 of imprisonment by the County Court. There is thus no statutory right to appeal available to you and the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal in your case. Accordingly, the Registrar of the Court of Appeal refuses to seal your documents and rejects them.

1. By way of email, dated 16 June 2025, the applicant also sought clarification as to the reason why his documents were rejected. The Court of Appeal Registry replied by way of email in the following terms:

The Court of Appeal does not have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against conviction or sentence in circumstances such as yours.

As explained in the reason provided in RedCrest, 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 exhausted - save for the exception found in s 283(2), which does not apply to you. There is no other section under which you can appeal to the Court of Appeal against your conviction or sentence.

1. On 16 June 2025, the applicant emailed the Court of Appeal Registry and challenged the Registrar's decision to refuse to accept his documents for filing. The applicant made an application for a direction under r 1A.04(4) of the Supreme Court (Criminal Procedure) Rules 2017 that his documents be sealed and accepted for filing. The applicant also requested that his matter be referred to a Judge of the Court of Appeal to answer his question of jurisdiction.
2. On 17 and 18 June 2025, the applicant reiterated his request that his documents be sealed and accepted for filing.

1. In its communications with the applicant, the Court of Appeal Registry referred to this Court's decision of James v English.[1] In that case, the Court said:

All appeals in criminal matters are governed by the Criminal Procedure Act 2009. That Act provides two avenues of appeal to 'a person convicted[2] of an offence by the Magistrates' Court in a criminal proceeding conducted in accordance with Part 3.3':[3] first, as occurred here, the person may appeal to the County Court under s 254; or, secondly, the person may appeal to the Supreme Court on a question of law under s 272. Importantly, once a person has exercised his or her right to appeal to the County Court under s 254, his or her rights of appeal are - save for one exception - exhausted.

1. The Court went on to note that the exception is found in s 283(2)(a), which permits a person sentenced to imprisonment on appeal to the County Court to appeal (by leave) to the Court of Appeal if, in the proceeding that is the subject of the appeal, the Magistrates' Court had not ordered that the person be imprisoned. This exception does not apply to the applicant.
2. As I have said, the applicant seeks leave to appeal his conviction and sentence under ss 274 and 278 respectively of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009. Appeals to the Court of Appeal from the County Court - including under ss 274 and 278 - are confined to appeals from the County Court in its original jurisdiction.[4] On an appeal from the Magistrates' Court, the County Court judge is sitting and exercising jurisdiction as a magistrate.[5] Sections 274 and 278 do not apply to the applicant's case.
3. In my view, the Registrar was correct to conclude that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's proposed appeals. The communications in RedCrest from the Registrar correctly set out the applicable law. The appeal is incompetent. I refuse the application to give a direction under r 1A.04(4).

[1] James v English [2023] VSCA 46 [5] (Priest and T Forrest JJA).

[2] By virtue of s 3(1), conviction 'includes a finding of guilt by a court, whether or not a conviction is recorded'.

[3] Part 3.3 is concerned with the summary hearings of criminal charges.

[4] This is apparent from the definition of 'originating court' in s 3. See Tran v Stevenson [2021] VSCA 198 [29] (Niall and Walker JJA).

[5] Tran v Stevenson [2021] VSCA 198 [29] (Niall and Walker JJA).