HIGH COURT UNDER THE MICROSCOPE; R V BUCCA 2015 "The danger of identity assumptions"

HIGH COURT UNDER THE MICROSCOPE; R V BUCCA 2015 – AWAITING DECISION. 

The danger of identity assumptions 

The case today is a case awaiting a decision. So I thought it would be interesting examine the submissions of the appellant. Submissions are papers written by defending council that outline the issues at hand. They are interesting to read – particularly for young law students because they show the application of law to legal matters. 

 Today’s case is about the use of evidence and its implications in a court of justice. When we see evidence, we like to assume it favors one side more than the other. However, in this case, you will see the impact of circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is a two-edged sword. From one angle it will support an argument and from another, it can defeat it. Phones are strong circumstantial evidence. The courts will often refuse to take the view that the accused did not have their phone on them. They can be used to track locations, motive, messages and previous history.   

CASE FACTS 

In the supreme court of South Australia Wesley Gange was convicted of shooting an Adrian McDonald. McDonald was killed in Parafield, South Australia. The prosecution argued that Gange shot McDonald. They claimed he had hidden in the boot of a car not far from where McDonald stood. McDonald and Gange were once in a relationship.

 The relationship had broken down and caused issues between them. Both of them were involved in drugs, firearms, and violent behavior. Gange had previously sold drugs to McDonald. 

His assistant Tristan Castle was sitting in the driver’s seat. Telecommunication records were used to show the movements of Gange and Castle’s phones. Before this event, Gange had sent texts to McDonald which were derogatory and contained threats.

 There was the use of an alibi for Gange. Gange’s girlfriend ‘M’ remembered seeing him at home on that day. However, disputes arose about the veracity of the evidence. She suffered from psychosis, false beliefs, auditory hallucinations, detachment from reality, paranoia and impaired reasoning. It was appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal. The appeal was on the basis that the judge had failed to direct the jury properly about the evidence of Gange’s involvement. 

The evidence was highly circumstantial. There is was brought to light that Gange and M used multiple phones interchangeably. It is hard to discern who made what texts and who had which phone. It became more impractical when both Gange and M admitted that because of drug use they often didn’t remember where they were or what they’d done. When the judge failed to show the holes properly in the evidence, the jury gave the circumstantial evidence too much weight. The judge should have given it little weight. The failure to do so made the conviction unjust and inevitable. 

 SUMMARY 

The court believed beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant shot the deceased. They based this belief on telephone records, motive evidence, proof of planning and a confrontation via text. The text messages recorded on the phone of the accomplice, Castle. There were documents placing Gange in a different location at the time of the shooting. 

There were also tracked movements through his phone that placed him at the crime scene. Expert evidence pointed out that phones were not a confirmation of identity. It could never be completely confirmed who was on the other end of the phone. However, the courts overlooked this and claimed the evidence was an important¬part of proof. They were allowed to be equally considered by the jury. 

 APPEAL TO HIGH COURT 

The case went to the high court for two reasons

 - Court of criminal appeal erred in holding that the learned trial judge correctly admitted evidence of the appellant’s past possession of firearms 

- The court of criminal appeal erred by not finding that the learned trial judge misdirected the jury about the weight given to each piece of evidence. 

You have to have specific legal reasons for going to the High Court. You can’t just decide that you don’t want to accept the verdict. The Court of Appeal has the right to refuse you ‘leave’ to go to the High Court. 

WHY NOT BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE? 

The evidence appears to be valid. 

However, if you examine the circumstances under which the evidence appears you will realize that it is highly circumstantial. 

 Firstly, the location of Gange’s phone was unimportant. He had left it behind in Castle’s car. They had not met up for a few days. That makes the connection between his placement and the murder further removed. 

Additionally, it was possible that his girlfriend was using the phone. M had purchased and paid for the phone. Their friends recorded that couple was close and mixed communication devices often. They shared friendship groups. 

If M had been using the phone, anything she said could not be taken into account against Gange. Her medical issues, including paranoia, hallucinations, and delusions suggest that anything she said may not be true. 

 Evidence also confirmed that while Gange used this phone, he also had an additional prepaid phone. M sometimes used this prepaid phone. Connecting a particular party to a phone is impossible. The two did not identify themselves before texting. A phone number is only associated with the phone and not its user at the time. Therefore, the courts had to assume an identity for the phone. That identity could never be guaranteed. 

It was shown that others might have been in possession of the tracked phone. Gange could not identify the exact date that he had it return to him. Some evidence suggested that it had been in possession of others during the day of the murder. 

The value of the tracked movements lessened when applied to the social habits of the accused. The shooting occurred during social hours. But because of the use of drugs neither Gange or Castle kept reasonable hours. Thus tracking whose movement was where and which may have been faked was a concern. While Gange admitted that he sometimes didn’t sleep for weeks, the courts had to apply some weight to the fact that the tracked movements reflected a pattern of someone with relatively normal waking hours.

 ISSUES

 There are many more issues connected to this case. In fact, the submissions of the appellant are 22 pages long. However, I wanted to focus on the use of circumstantial evidence in criminal law. 

When used the evidence appears to make a conflicting statement about the right to fair trial. We are all familiar with this right. Therefore, committing someone on a circumstantial case alone appears unfair. 

The Bucca Case has not yet come to trial, but it will be interesting to see the High Court’s remarks upon the extreme reliance on the assumption of identity. 

 New technologies have increased the ability for police to track charged individuals. However, it also leads to confusion and greater misunderstanding. Phone numbers are not identity codes, yet it appears the court has begun to treat them as such. It would be interesting to remove the evidence of Gange’s phone and re-run the trial. My prediction would be that without the critical assumption that a phone indicates the identity of a person, no case could be completed.

 I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this issue. Also for those who don't listen to the podcast. This week I am celebrating two years of running my studyblr and theunderagelawyer.blogspot.com. In celebration I will be releasing a 'printables' package which will be available online in the next episode.

How to speed read like an expert

Hello everyone and welcome to another blog post on the underage lawyer.

 One of the topics that have been coming up frequently in my conversations with others is speed reading. It’s a skill that you probably only think about when you have three days to complete an essay, and you haven’t started researching yet. However, speed reading is an important skill that can assist you in everyday life. It shouldn’t be disregarded as useless skills. 

Those who want to pursue a career in law need to know that they will spend every day of their life reading. 


Client’s files can be anything from one to forty volumes long – and it’s your job to read and study them all. Reading is also the best way to expand your vocabulary and improve your thinking capabilities.

 Think of reading as upgrading technology. The more you do it, the better it gets. The less you do it, you eventually fall behind. Here are a few ways to improve your reading speed:

 1. Read a lot

 This is a basic essential. The more you read the faster you get. The less the read the slower you will become. Some scientific studies suggest that reading things on the screen of a computer is actually different to reading on paper. I’m not entirely convinced, but just to be certain you’re actually reaping the benefits of reading make sure you read both on and off screen. To improve your reading, think of it a little like sprinting. You have to run as fast as you can regardless of whether you can maintain the speed or not. When you are first beginning training yourself to speed read, don’t worry so much about comprehension. As your retrain your eyes to move along the page at a faster rate, you’ll begin to take more in.

 2. Pick the operative words 

One fatal mistake when it comes to non-recreational reading is that we read all of it. It’s very rare that all of the text will be relevant to you. To improve your reading pace identify what it is you’re looking for. Then pick three or four words that will describe that thing. From there you can run your eyes over the text. Every time you see a relevant word stop and read a few sentences surrounding the word. If it applies, congratulations. If it doesn’t apply, then keep skimming through. This way you’ll be able to ascertain just how relevant the material is. If you don’t see any words that seem relevant then either rethink your operative words or move on to the next paper. 

3. Read the first and last line 

There’s a lot to be said for introductions and conclusions. Remember learning about topic sentences in high school? Well, this is why you use them. Academic literature uses these to highlight what they’re going to say. When you’re in a rush, don’t bother with the rest of the paragraph. Just focus on the first lines of every article. By the time you reach the end, you’ll have a general idea of what’s being said. Additionally, if you read the last line of every paragraph, you’ll have a concluding statement and a linking statement. The linking statement usually explains how the next section will connect to the first. This is important because it will show you the pace that the essay evolves at and any assumptions that you need to be aware of. 

 4. Don’t sound the words aloud in your head 

When reading a lot of readers like to ‘speak’ the words in their head. This is a waste of time. Your brain is capable of comprehending the phrase without sounding it out. The more you read, the more you will be able to do this. But to begin with, help yourself to lose the habit by reciting random words in your head as you read. I began doing this by saying ‘aeiou’ over and over again while I was reading. To do this at first, it is best, to start with relatively simple reads. Try reading opinion articles or Buzzfeed pieces. They’re much easier to comprehend than academic literature and will build your confidence. You may be surprised at how much you can understand without having to focus too much on sounding out the words. 

 5. Dot point as you go 

A critical issue with speed reading is that people are concerned they can’t read quickly and understand the text. A simple way to of getting around this is to write one word describing the paragraph. Skim read the article as fast as you can and then summarize it immediately. The use of summaries in one or two words helps to lessen the fear of not understanding. The human brain is far less reliant on the sound of the words than people think. When reading the shape of the letters is just as important.

 6. When you don’t understand keep reading 

This may sound a little counter-intuitive. However, the biggest trap for slow readers is that they are hesitant to move on before they understand something. That will slow you down. Some points are poorly explained, and it will take multiple readings to understand. You need to know that if a point is badly explained it’s likely not essential to the argument and is irrelevant to your reading. It may also be that you’ll come to understand it when you read something later in the document. Your best bet when trying to rush your way through a massive pile of information is just to keep reading. Stopping and rereading things will break the rhythm of the reading. That may also cause you to read slower.

The High Court under the microscope: Crown Melbourne Limited v Cosmopolitan Hotel (Vic) Pty Ltd [2016] HCA 26

High Court of Australia Report and Summary

As a young lawyer living in Australia, one of the things I am most excited about is the access to justice. That means that as Australians and more generally, members of the world we have a right of access to all legal judgments passed down by the courts. Therefore, I would like to summarize a recent high court decision which I’m sure you will all find very exciting. The judgment was handed down on the 20th of July 2016.

The title of the case is Crown Melbourne Limited v Cosmopolitan Hotel (Vic) Pty Ltd. The following is only intended to be a summary of the case and will not include all the detail held by the original judgment.

The judges:

French.

 Robert Shenton French was born in March 1947 and is the twelfth and current Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. He is from Western Australia and is commonly described as a social progressive judge.

Kiefel.

Susan Mary Kiefel is a Justice in the High Court of Australia and was born in January 1954. She left school at fifteen and is only the third women ever to have been appointed as a judge to the High Court. She’s from Queensland Australia and has a keen interest in comparative law.

Bell.

Virgina Bell is a justice of the High Court of Australia and was sworn in on the 3rd of February 2009. She was one of the first to work at the Redfern Legal Center and has a strong commitment to social justice. However, she does caution against labeling judges and prefers to allow her actions show her true beliefs.

Gageler.

Stephen Gageler is a Justice in the High Court and was previously working as a barrister in Sydney, New South Wales. He was born in July 1958 and has made a name for himself as being someone who is keen to separate himself from the pack. He prefers to write alone and firmly believes in considering public policy when determining a result.

Public policy is a general term meaning to think about the well-being and overall impact on the community.

Keane.

Justice Keane was appointed in 2003 and comes from Queensland Australia. He is often called a ‘speedy judge’ by the media. The term refers to his reputation for fast work and an eye for attempting to minimize the growing complex and expense process that is litigation. In an interview with the Australian, another judge commented that he is ‘a leader in embracing electronic filing and organization of its workload.’

Nettle.

Geoffrey Nettle is called by the attorney general one of Australia’s finest jurists. He caused some controversy as he is the oldest judge to be appointed to the position as judges are required to retire at the age of seventy. With great wit, he told an audience ‘any damage I may do now is limited.’ He’s an approachable judge with an incredible diversity of interest and experience.

Gordon JJ:

Michelle Gordon was appointed to the court in June 2015. Before her appointment, she was a judge in the Federal Court of Australia. Justice Gordon has much experience from her previous experience in the Federal Court.  She is also highly regarded by the legal community.

 The case

Parties (members) to the case:

Appellant: Crown

Respondent: Cosmopolitan

The big issue:

Crown made a statement to Cosmopolitan that they would be ‘looked after at renewal time.’ The court had to consider whether this statement meant that Cosmopolitan had a guaranteed future with the lease.

Court history:

The VCAT determined that the declaration implied that Crown had to renew the leases for five years on terms that they could decide. The Tribunal also concluded that if they were wrong, then the tenants were estopped from denying the existence of the collateral contract.

Terms:

VCAT: Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Australia)

Estopped: Refers to the legal doctrine of contract law ‘estoppel.’ That means when a promise is made that a second party relied and acted on they are entitled to have it enforced in a court of justice.

Collateral contract: The happens when one contract already exists but another promise or condition connected to that contract forms another contract – called a subsidiary contract.

Facts of the case:

Crown owns the Melbourne Casino and the Entertainment Complex. The tenants then had two leases where they operated two restaurants. In 2005 lease negotiations began and the new leases offered by the Crown were limited to five years. They also did not contain an option for renewal and only required for the Crow­­­­n to give six months’ notice to let Cosmopolitan know whether they would:

A)    Renew the lease and the terms

B)    Allow the tenant to occupy the premises on a monthly basis after the expiry date

C)    Require the tenant to leave

Part of this agreement also mean that Cosmopolitan had to pay for and run a major refurbishment. The resident’s representative did express concern about renovation costs and attempted to solicit a promise of lease extension from the crown. However, Crown was unwilling to do this.

The contract was signed in 2005 and delivered to the Crown in March 2006.

In 2008 tenders were requested by Crown for new leases. Cosmopolitan put their bids in during March 2009. Crown rejected them and required them to vacate the premises by August 2010 when their 2005 lease expired.

In 2010 Cosmopolitan brought the issue to VCAT and complained that Crown had suggested to their legal representative that they'd have an extra five years of tenancy on their lease. They said that the refurbishments would not have occurred without this promise.

They claimed two things:

1.    The promise created a collateral contract

2.    If it did not create a collateral contract, Crown was estopped from not extending their lease.

Both claims have the same effect. The Crown would not be able to refuse to extend the lease.

VCAT did not find these representations in the terms but did find a statement that gave rise to a collateral contract. They rejected evident from Mr. Zampelis, Cosmopolitan’s legal representative but did accept evidence from Mr. Zampelis about assurances sought from Crown about a longer release term. The key piece of evidence was a handwritten note claiming that Cosmopolitan would be ‘looked after’ at renewal time.

VCAT’s original reasoning:

Promissory and Proprietary Estoppel

According to the High Court, VCAT erroneously reasoned in regards to the promissory statement. The promise to renew a five-year lease implied that the renewal would be for the same period. VCAT said that this was the only term that the Crown had to uphold. They did not agree that similar terms and conditions to the 2005 contract had to be applied. The High Court infers that this kind of reasoning is risky as commercial enterprises cannot always be trusted to be fair under circumstances like these.

The enactment of estoppel requires a precise and unambiguous statement; Low v Bouverie. This requires that the person who they are addressed to would understand them in a particular way. They must be capable of misleading a reasonable person in that same situation to believe something that is not accurate. In this circumstance the statement ‘looked after at renewal time’ is not capable of conveying that Crown would extend the lease.

Therefore, the estoppel doctrine does not apply to this circumstance due to the ambiguity of the statement.

Collateral Contract

Hospital Products v US Surgical Corp; a representation made in the course of negotiations may result in an agreement collateral to the main agreement if it can be concluded that the parties intended that representation to be contractually binding or if it has that quality of a contractual promise. The Supreme Court of Victoria said about this case the statement ‘looked after at renewal time’ was too ambiguous to be inferred to mean a contractually binding promise to give an extra five years of lease.

The Supreme Court also said that the statement in question lacked specificity and failed to outline how exactly the Crown would fulfill the promise.

Result:

There was no promise, and there was no contract. The lease was lawfully terminated, and Cosmopolitan are not entitled to a renewal or damages.

What does this mean for me?

It doesn’t add much to the doctrine of estoppel, but overall it does tell you that if you’re in a negotiation process with someone you should always make sure that you’re both being specific. There are a lot of court cases similar to this one where ambiguous statements led to prolonged legal conflict that is often costly and ineffective.

If you’re entering a contractual negotiation like the one above it is advisable that you enlist the services of a registered legal practitioner. You may think solicitors are expensive but court costs are higher!

Highlights from some of the judges:

Gaegeler:

-    The lease did not operate to confer a contractual discretion which is circumscribed by the collateral contract…instead to impose a contractual obligation on Crown to give notice of a decision to be made by Crown outside the terms of the lease.

-    [Crown’s case] assert’s want of contractual certainty [and] contractual completeness.

Keane:

-    The categories of promissory and proprietary estoppel serve a common purpose of protecting a party from a detriment which would flow from a party’s change of position if the assumption or expectation that led to it were deserted. (Giumelli v Giumelli)

-    It would reduce the law to incoherence if a representation to uncertain or ambiguous to give rise to a contract of a variation of contractual rights and liabilities were held to be sufficient to found a promissory estoppel

Nettle:

-    Principal question…is whether the court of appeal was correct to remit the matter back to VCAT on the basis that Crown was estopped from departing from the tenants assumption…that question should be answered no.

-    [about the application of promissory estoppel] The notion of some “lower limit” of the “great area” was misconceived {emphasis not added}

If you'd like to read the judgement in full it is available online here.

Or you can read other high court cases online here.