outline. There are really three matters before the
Court, and for that reason we hand up ten copies.
When the Court reads that I would like to remark,
as an introductory matter, on the three matters
which are before the Court. This outline relates
to the appeal.

MASON CJ: Yes, Mr Hampson.

MR HAMPSON: That is the appeal which raises matters under

the Invasion of Privacy Act. Notices pursuant to
section 78B were circulated and an affidavit by
Michael Patrick Quinn was filed on 15 November
showing that no States wishe to intervene in
relation to the matter. There are also before the
Court, in addition to that appeal, an application
for special leave to appeal from the decision of
the Full Court in Coco v Shaw, which decision was
given before the appellant's criminal trial; that
was numbered B13 of 1991. This Court refused an
application for special leave to appeal from that
decision on 26 June 1991 on the basis that those
civil proceedings were fragmenting the criminal
process.
Very similar issues were raised in those

proceedings as are raised in the current appeal and
the application for special leave is renewed only

to avoid any suggestion of res judicata. At the
time when the Court granted special leave in
Brisbane in relation to this present appeal, there
was some discussion of the possibility of someone
raising a suggestion of res judicata and the Court
intimated that if the applicant wished, it might
renew that application for special leave to avoid
any such possibility. That is the reason why that
application for special leave is before the Court.
The third matter is an application to renew

the application for special leave to appeal heard
on 1 July 1993 in this matter in order to raise special leave, when special leave was granted on
questions under the principle of Bunning v Cross.

Coco(3)

17/11/93

the invasion of privacy matters, the Court
indicated that if the applicant was so advised, he
might be at liberty to renew the application for
leave to appeal on the Bunning v Cross point to the
Court hearing…

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.

Continue reading Coco v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Coco v The Queen [1993] HCATrans 351
Case: [1993] HCATrans 351
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Coco v The Queen* came before the High Court of Australia concerning an appeal and applications for special leave to appeal. The appellant, Mr Coco, sought to appeal a decision related to matters arising under the *Invasion of Privacy Act*. In addition to the main appeal, there were two applications for special leave to appeal: one from a decision in civil proceedings (*Coco v Shaw*) and another to renew an earlier application for special leave concerning the principle established in *Bunning v Cross*.

The legal issues before the Court included whether the appellant's actions constituted a contravention of the *Invasion of Privacy Act*, and the application of the exclusionary rule derived from *Bunning v Cross*. This latter issue concerned whether evidence obtained through a serious and illegal invasion of privacy should be excluded, and how such a finding might affect the exercise of discretion regarding the admissibility of evidence. The Court also considered the potential for *res judicata* in relation to the civil proceedings.

The Court's reasoning, as indicated by the transcript, involved a consideration of the trial judge's earlier ruling that the police officers had acted lawfully under the *Invasion of Privacy Act*. The Chief Justice and Justice Pincus had agreed with this conclusion. However, the application for special leave on the *Bunning v Cross* ground was renewed to address the possibility that a finding on the appeal might reveal a serious and illegal invasion of privacy, which could then impact the discretion to admit evidence. The Court had previously refused special leave in the *Coco v Shaw* matter, deeming the civil proceedings to be fragmenting the criminal proceedings, but allowed for its renewal to avoid any suggestion of *res judicata*.

Orders