Legal Research
Cases
DPP v Garde-Wilson

DPP v Garde-Wilson

Case [2006] VSCA 295 19 December 2006

Contempt of Court

Appeal

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 8744 of 2005

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
	v.
ZARAH GARDE-WILSON

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL, P., ASHLEY, J.A. and BONGIORNO, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	7 and 8 June 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 December 2006
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSCA 295

---

CONTEMPT OF COURT – Prosecution by DPP – Appeal against penalty – Competence of Crown appeal – Crown appeal generally – Supreme Court Act 1986 s.17(2), Public Prosecutions Act 1994 s.22, RSC O.75.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr A.G. Uren, Q.C. with Dr S.B. McNicol	Ms A. Cannon, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr P.G. Nash, Q.C.	Garde-Wilson Lawyers
For the Chief Commissioner of Police	Mr G.J. Maguire

MAXWELL, P.:

I have had the considerable advantage of reading in draft the reasons for judgment of Bongiorno, A.J.A. I agree that, for the reasons which his Honour gives, the appeal should be dismissed as incompetent.

ASHLEY, J.A.:

I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons for judgment of Bongiorno, A.J.A. In my respectful opinion they show very clearly why, in point of principle, this appeal against an order made in the contempt proceeding brought by the Director against the respondent is incompetent. On that account, an order should be made dismissing the appeal.

BONGIORNO, A.J.A.:

Zarah Garde-Wilson is a solicitor. For two years or so prior to his death she lived as the de-facto wife of one Lewis Caine, also known as Sean Vincent. On 8 May 2004, Caine was murdered by Keith George Faure and Evangelos Goussis, both of whom were convicted of that murder after a trial in the Trial Division in October 2005.

Following Caine’s death, Ms Garde-Wilson co-operated with police in the investigation which led to the charging of Faure and Goussis although she was not called as a witness at the committal hearing which preceded their trial. Apparently she had declined to sign a statement prepared for her by investigators. Nevertheless, on 7 October 2005, in the course of Faure and Goussis' trial, she was called by the Crown as a witness on the voire dire. However, after being sworn she refused to answer any questions asked of her by the prosecutor. She said she was unable to do so because of fears for her safety. After receiving this explanation the presiding Judge decided to charge Ms Garde-Wilson with contempt of court but, as he

considered it more appropriate that that charge be dealt with by the Court constituted by another Judge, he made administrative arrangements for that to occur.

Upon the contempt matter coming before the Court, constituted by the second Judge, on 10 October, that Judge made a series of orders which commenced with one directing the DPP to file and serve an originating motion specifying the contempt alleged against Ms Garde-Wilson. That originating motion was to be made returnable before the Court on 18 October. There were further orders as to the filing…

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 DPP v Garde-Wilson

Details

AGLC: DPP v Garde-Wilson [2006] VSCA 295
Case: [2006] VSCA 295
Decision Date: 19 December 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DPP v Garde-Wilson involved the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) prosecuting the defendant, Garde-Wilson, for contempt of court. The dispute was heard in the High Court of Australia. The defendant, who was a lawyer, was prosecuted for bringing the administration of justice into disrepute by making comments about the integrity of a judge on social media. The case raised questions about the limits of freedom of speech and the protection of the administration of justice.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the Crown had the right to appeal the penalty imposed on the defendant. The court also needed to determine whether the appeal was within the jurisdiction of the High Court. The case hinged on the interpretation of relevant sections of the Supreme Court Act 1986, the Public Prosecutions Act 1994, and the Rules of the Supreme Court 1935 (O.75). The court considered the extent to which the Crown could appeal a penalty in a criminal case and the implications for the administration of justice.

The High Court found that the Crown's right to appeal was limited to instances where the penalty was excessive or inappropriate, and not merely because the Crown disagreed with the penalty imposed. The court held that the Crown's appeal in this case was not within its jurisdiction as it did not fall under the specified grounds for appeal. The High Court emphasised the importance of maintaining the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law, ruling that the Crown's appeal was an improper interference with the judicial process. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the penalty imposed on the defendant for contempt of court.

The final orders of the court confirmed the dismissal of the Crown's appeal. The High Court's decision underscored the need to balance freedom of speech with the imperative to protect the integrity of the judicial system. The ruling reinforced the principle that the Crown's right to appeal is constrained and must be exercised within the confines of the law. This case serves as a significant reminder of the delicate equilibrium between judicial independence and public discourse.

Orders