TITLE OF COURT: COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (TAS) JURISDICTION: APPELLATE FILE NO/S: CCA 59/2001; CCA 60/2001; CCA 65/2001
CCA 66/2001; CCA 69/2001
DELIVERED ON: 30 August 2002 DELIVERED AT: Hobart HEARING DATES: 18-22 March and 6 June 2002 JUDGMENT OF: Cox CJ, Crawford and Evans JJ
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law - General matters - Ancillary liability - Conspiracy - Generally - Whether Crown must prove guilt of all named conspirators.
Gerakiteys v R (1983 - 1984) 153 CLR 317, distinguished. Aust Dig Criminal Law [87]
Criminal Law - General matters - Ancillary liability - Conspiracy - Proof and evidence - Evidence of participation by accused in conspiracy - Reasonable independent evidence of participation - Co-conspirators rule of evidence - Direction to jury - Multiple charges and accused - Need to identify evidence admissible under rule with respect to each charge and each accused - Whether the jury must agree that the same persons were parties to the conspiracy.
Criminal Law - Appeal and new trial and enquiry after conviction - Appeal and new trial - Particular grounds - Fresh evidence - General principles - Miscarriage of justice - Course to be taken by appeal court - Hearing and evaluation of new evidence.
Criminal Law - Evidence - Matters relating to proof - Standard of proof - Circumstantial evidence - Reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence - Direction to jury - Adequacy - Whether need for direction that intermediate conclusions of fact should be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal Law - Jurisdiction, practice and procedure - Judgment and punishment - Sentence - Factors to be taken into account - Circumstances of offender - Conduct during delay between offence and sentencing.
Criminal Law - Jurisdiction, practice and procedure - Judgment and punishment - Sentence - Factors to be taken into account - Parity - General principles - Principle confined…
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 Georgiadis v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Georgiadis v The Queen [2002] TASSC 58
Case
[2002] TASSC 58
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Criminal Appeal of Tasmania dismissed the appeals of John Georgiadis and Julie Theodosis against their convictions but allowed the appeal of John Belbin against his sentence. The appeals arose from a case involving multiple conspiracies to defraud the Minister of Sea Fisheries by understating the weight of abalone caught and processed, and omitting to lodge required documentation. The appellants were convicted of various conspiracy charges and one appellant, Theodosis, was also convicted of perverting justice. The appeals raised issues concerning the adequacy of jury directions, the admissibility of co-conspirators' statements, the effect of the appellants' marriage on the conspiracy charges, and the severity of the sentences imposed. The Court found that the jury directions were adequate, the co-conspirators' statements were properly admitted, and there was no miscarriage of justice due to the omission of a direction concerning the marital status of the appellants. However, the Court found that the sentencing judge had erred in assessing the period of Theodosis's involvement in the conspiracies and in not giving sufficient weight to the appellants' cooperation during the trial. The Court also found that the sentences imposed on Georgiadis and Theodosis were not manifestly excessive but that Theodosis's sentence should be reconsidered in light of the errors identified.