Caratti v the Queen P86/2000 - [2001] HCATrans 537

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Perth No P86 of 2000

B e t w e e n -
JOHN MICHAEL CARATTI
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

GAUDRON J
KIRBY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT PERTH ON WEDNESDAY, 24 OCTOBER 2001, AT 3.28 PM

MR P.V. BATROS: May it please your Honours, I appear for the applicant in this matter. (instructed by Davies & Co)

MR D.J. BUGG, QC: If your Honours please, I appear with MS C.A. FLETCHER, for the respondent. (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth))

GAUDRON J: Yes, Mr Batros.

MR BATROS: Your Honours, in addressing you briefly and to the point by way of oral submissions in amplification or in support of the written material, but not repeating it, I have had put before the Court - and I trust you have received them – four volumes of ancillary material to which I will be referring.

GAUDRON J: Four volumes?

MR BATROS: There are four bound volumes that were filed at the Registry last Friday.

GAUDRON J: Yes, thank you.

MR BATROS: If your Honours have not seen them, I will take you directly to them.

KIRBY J: We do not normally read through the cases unless they are significant and particular to the matter.

MR BATROS: No, your Honour. I do take that point. That was simply a courtesy. But the cases went in, in as book 1, but I can tell you book 2 is the statute law of the various States in the Commonwealth of Australia, to give the Court the comparable statutes, and so that I can explain to you the broad comparable position, which is relevant, of course, to any special leave application as to an indication of how widespread and how important these points are that I will be able to give that to you in brief summary. Most importantly of all, however, is book 4, and book 4, if I could take your Honours to it, does have an index and summary to it. Why I have, particularly, had book 4 prepared is to show to the Court, from the actual trial transcript itself - which you do not have amongst the appeal papers ‑ the degree of impact that this Navratil statutory declaration that I am going to be addressing in just a brief moment – the impact that it had. Because it is so hard, from a lofty higher court position, to ever really evaluate what happened.

GAUDRON J: Yes, but the issue must be, in the end, on that question, must it not, whether, assuming it to be inadmissible – and it does not seem to me that that is a matter that has to be addressed, really, unless you come to the conclusion – and this is the question – that the trial judge was virtually obliged, in the circumstances, to discharge the jury.…

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 Caratti v the Queen P86/2000 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: [2001] HCATrans 537
Decision Date: 24 October 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Mr Caratti against his conviction for conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of heroin. The prosecution alleged that Mr Caratti, along with others, conspired to import heroin into Australia between 1995 and 1997. The conviction was based on evidence including intercepted telephone conversations and the testimony of a co-conspirator.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting certain evidence, specifically intercepted telephone conversations, against Mr Caratti. The defence argued that the evidence was inadmissible because it had been obtained in contravention of statutory provisions governing the interception of communications. A further issue concerned the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the use of the co-conspirator's evidence.

Gaudron and Kirby JJ, in their joint judgment, addressed the admissibility of the intercepted communications. They affirmed that the admissibility of such evidence is governed by the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth) and related legislation. The Court examined the specific circumstances under which the interceptions were authorised and conducted, concluding that the evidence was lawfully obtained and therefore admissible. Furthermore, the judges found that the trial judge's directions concerning the co-conspirator's testimony, when read as a whole, adequately conveyed the necessary warnings to the jury about the potential unreliability of such evidence and the need for corroboration.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding Mr Caratti's conviction.

Orders