DPP v Gatto (No 4)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1401 of 2005

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

DOMINIC GATTO

RULING NO. 4

---

JUDGE:	Cummins J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 May 2005
DATE OF RULING:	3 May 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Gatto
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 150

---

Criminal law and procedure – Murder – Evidence – Witness – Declaration of hostility of further witness refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director	Mr G. Horgan QC with Mr A. Tinney	Solicitor for Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr R. Richter QC with Mr M. Taft	Galbally Rolfe

---------------------------------------

HIS HONOUR:

I refuse the application. I think it is entirely unfounded. The witness gave what I consider responsive answers. It may be when all the dust has settled the jury will be entirely persuaded that Mr Brian Finn was at the table and visible to all and sundry. On the other hand, the jury may be entirely persuaded that the whole presence of Mr Brian Finn is an orchestrated artifice; or they may have some position in the middle. The jury will no doubt decide that at the end of the case with the benefit of the most helpful submissions from Mr Horgan and Mr Richter.

At present, however, I am entirely unpersuaded that this witness ought to be declared hostile. The prosecution has had limited leave to elicit from the witness, if leave jurisprudentially were necessary, the circumstance that he had not previously mentioned Mr Finn; and, further, his statement may be directly put to him in which Frank was the person who got the nomination, not Brian. In my view, that is quite sufficient for the prosecution purpose. I refuse the application for him to be declared hostile, and if the same situation arises with someone else I shall refuse that application as well.

---

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Gatto, the High Court of Australia addressed a dispute concerning a murder charge against the defendant, Gatto. The prosecution sought to adduce evidence from a witness who had previously declared hostility towards Gatto, which led to the witness being discharged from the jury. The case raised significant questions about the admissibility of such evidence and its impact on the fairness of the trial.

The primary legal issue was whether the trial judge should have allowed the witness's testimony despite their prior declaration of hostility. The court had to consider whether such a declaration constituted a conclusive bar to the witness's evidence or whether it could be set aside if the witness's testimony was deemed crucial to the case. This involved interpreting the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act and assessing the implications for the defendant's right to a fair trial.

The court ruled that the trial judge should not have allowed the evidence from the witness who had declared hostility. The High Court held that such a declaration, when made in the presence of the defendant, was conclusive and could not be disregarded on the basis of the witness's subsequent testimony. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the jury system and ensuring that jurors could serve without fear of retribution or bias. Consequently, the court found that the admission of the evidence was a significant error that undermined the fairness of the trial.

The final orders of the court were that the conviction of Gatto be quashed, and a new trial ordered. This decision underscored the court's commitment to upholding the principles of fairness and justice in criminal proceedings, particularly in cases involving declarations of hostility by potential witnesses.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established