Georgescu v The Queen - [1991] HCATrans 338

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Melbourne No M25 of 1991
B e t w e e n -

CHRISTINEL TEDDY GEORGESCU

Applicant

and
THE QUEEN

Respondent

Application for special
leave to appeal

MASON CJ
BRENNAN J

DAWSON J

Georges cu

15/11/91

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON FRIDAY, 15 NOVEMBER 1991, AT 2.34 PM

MR O.P. HOLDENSON:

May it please the Court, I appear in

this matter on behalf of the applicant,

Mr Georgescu. (instructed by Haines & Polites)

MR W.B. WOINARSKI, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear with

my learned friend, MR N.R. BIRD, on behalf of the

respondent. (instructed by the Director of Public
Prosecutions (Victoria))

MASON CJ: Yes, Mr Holdenson.

MR HOLDENSON:

The issue in this matter depends upon the

answer to the question posed by His Honour
Mr Justice Barton in the case of Ridley v Whipp,
(1916) 22 CLR 381.

MASON CJ:

What was that question?

MR HOLDENSON:

I will come to it, Your Honour.

Perhaps the

bundle of authorities might be handed up. At
page 389, that decision being the first one in the
bundle handed to the Court, His Honour
Mr Justice Barton posed the question as to what
happens or what occurs when a man tries to lift

himself up off the ground by his bootstraps. The
question, Your Honours - - -

MASON CJ: If that is the question for the Court's

resolution I cannot see us granting special leave.

MR HOLDENSON:

That may well be the result, but as to the

manner in which the question arises I will now

come. As is set out in the application book at
page 7, where is set out the arguments to be
advanced on behalf of the applicant, the first
submission is that:
In the instant matter, the learned trial judge
directed the jury that if they determined that the Prosecution witness Paul Gerard Alcock was
an "accomplice", then it would be dangerous

evidence of the said witness. for them to convict upon the uncorroborated

And as is set out in the judgment of the court
below, by reason of it being common ground at the
trial, the jury must have so treated that

particular witness. As a result, as is indicated
in the second submission in that outline of
argument:
The learned trial judge then indicated to the jury various pieces of evidentiary material, each of which was capable -

in his direction -

Georges cu

15/11/91

of amounting to corroboration of the said
witness -

Alcock. Of those six items, and if I could just
briefly indicate those six to the Court, the first
was the use of a pager - that is a paging device;
the second was arranged meetings between Alcock and
the applicant, Mr Georgescu; the third related to the entries in a diary; the fourth related to the events in the hallway outside a certain room in the
Seaview Hotel;…

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 Georgescu v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Georgescu v The Queen [1991] HCATrans 338
Case: [1991] HCATrans 338
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on an application for special leave to appeal by the applicant, Mr Georgescu, against the respondent, The Queen. The dispute concerned the admissibility and sufficiency of corroborative evidence in a criminal trial.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether evidence, to be capable of corroborating an accomplice's testimony, must originate from a source independent of that accomplice. A further question arose as to whether evidence that is merely consistent with both the prosecution and defence cases, particularly when it forms part of the defence's own narrative, can constitute corroboration.

The applicant argued that the trial judge had erred in directing the jury that certain evidentiary materials could amount to corroboration of an accomplice witness. The applicant contended that the evidence in question, specifically relating to a pager, arranged meetings, a diary, and scales, was not independent of the accomplice and was, in some instances, consistent with the defence's own case. The High Court considered the principle that corroborative evidence must be independent of the witness it seeks to corroborate, and that evidence merely consistent with both cases, especially when integrated into the defence, may not suffice.

The High Court ultimately granted special leave to appeal.

Orders