Key Takeaways:
- Tom Silvagni, the son of AFL great Stephen Silvagni, is appealing his conviction for two counts of rape
- Silvagni’s legal team argues that a phone call between him and the victim should not have been used as evidence in his trial
- The appeal centers on the admissibility of statements made by Silvagni during a "pretext call" with the victim
- Silvagni’s lawyers claim that the trial judge erred in determining that the statements were capable of constituting evidence of incriminating conduct
- The appeal also argues that the trial judge failed to properly instruct jurors on the use of the evidence
Introduction to the Case
Tom Silvagni, the 23-year-old son of AFL great Stephen Silvagni, is fighting to have his conviction for two counts of rape quashed. Silvagni was found guilty of the crimes last month after a trial in which it was revealed that he had snuck into a bedroom at his family’s Melbourne home, pretended to be someone else, and sexually assaulted a woman. The victim, who cannot be named for legal reasons, reported the crime to police, and Silvagni was subsequently arrested and charged. Silvagni’s legal team has now launched an appeal against his convictions, arguing that a phone call between him and the victim should not have been used as evidence in his trial.
The Appeal
The appeal centers on a phone call that the victim made to Silvagni on January 25, days after the sexual assault occurred. The call was recorded by police, and Silvagni’s lawyers argue that the statements he made during the call were not capable of constituting evidence of incriminating conduct. The lawyers claim that the trial judge, Gregory Lyon, erred in determining that the statements were admissible as evidence and that he failed to properly instruct the jury on the use of the evidence. The appeal document states that the trial judge "erred in determining that the statements made by (Silvagni) to the complainant during the pretext call… (a) were capable of constituting evidence of incriminating conduct, (b) were reasonably capable of being viewed by the jury as evidence of incriminating conduct and (c) could be relied upon by the prosecution as evidence of incriminating conduct."
The Trial and Sentence
Silvagni was sentenced to six years and two months behind bars, with a minimum non-parole period of three years and three months. The maximum jail term for rape is 25 years, with an average of seven to 10 years. The trial heard that Silvagni had shown no remorse for his actions and that his crimes were marked by planning, cunning, and strategy. The victim impact statement read out in court described the fear and confusion she felt during the assault and the ongoing impact it has had on her life. Silvagni’s lawyers had argued for a lesser sentence, citing his youth and lack of prior convictions, but the judge rejected these arguments, stating that Silvagni’s actions were egregious and showed a lack of empathy towards the victim.
The Suppression Order
The case was subject to a suppression order, which barred the media from reporting on Silvagni’s identity. The order was in place for over a year, until it was lifted following the trial. Silvagni’s lawyers had argued that reporting his identity could have a negative impact on his mental health and his family, but the judge ultimately ruled that the public’s right to know outweighed these concerns. The suppression order was the subject of an ongoing legal battle between media outlets and the Silvagni family, with the media arguing that the order was unnecessary and that the public had a right to know the identity of the accused.
The Family’s Response
Silvagni’s family, including his father Stephen and mother Jo, have been supportive of their son throughout the trial and appeal process. Stephen Silvagni, a Carlton great and former AFL player, has vowed to clear his son’s name and has stated that the family stands firmly behind Tom. The family has asked for privacy and respect during this difficult time, but it is clear that they are committed to supporting Tom throughout the appeal process. If the appeal is successful, the Court of Appeal would quash Silvagni’s convictions and either order a retrial or acquit him. The outcome of the appeal is still uncertain, but one thing is clear: the case has had a profound impact on all parties involved, and the road to justice will be long and difficult.
