Georgiou v The Queen

[2003] HCATrans 481

[2003] HCATrans 481

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Brisbane  No B51 of 2002

B e t w e e n -

LOIZOS GEORGIOU

Applicant

and

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

HAYNE J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM BRISBANE BY VIDEO LINK TO CANBERRA

ON FRIDAY, 14 NOVEMBER 2003, AT 1.00 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR L. GEORGIOU appeared in person.

MRS L.J. CLARE:   If the Court pleases, I appear for the respondent.  (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld))

HAYNE J:   Yes, Mr Georgiou. 

MR GEORGIOU:   Good morning, your Honours.  I am the applicant in Georgiou v The Queen, reference No B51 of 2000, and the respondent is the representative of the Public Prosecutions.  Your Honours, you may be aware that I am representing myself and I am a little bit nervous.  It is important to raise this, so your Honours do not get the impression that I have not tried to get legal representation in this matter.

It is my submission that the in‑house legal representatives from Legal Aid in the State of Queensland have finally scared every legal representative away that I have spoken to.  If I have no one else to turn to for legal representation, I will be left with representing myself, or to hit the panic button and allow the in‑house legal representatives to handle my case, so they could amend and be able to justify their actions without having to explain or show cause as to why they chose to represent me and withdraw my original grounds of appeal without my authority.

I would like to draw your Honours’ attention to the affidavit on page 193 in the application book.  The purpose of this affidavit is to show your Honours the reasons and steps that I have taken to dismiss Legal Aid from handling my case in the Queensland Court of Criminal Appeal.  At exhibit 6, that is on page 198, is a letter that I faxed to the Registrar of the Appeals Court, stating that I wish to represent myself.  Exhibit 7 is on page 201, of the letter from Legal Aid acknowledging that they have received a copy of my instructions that I will be representing myself and legal aid has terminated and they have closed my files months before the hearing.

I would like to draw your Honours’ attention to the same affidavit, but Part Two on the next page, on page 194.  The reason that I have placed this information and exhibits before the Court was to show that I was aware of the evidence that holds the conviction and the unrecorded grounds that were withdrawn by Legal Aid did, in fact, hold far more weight to quash this conviction than any other ground that could be possibly put before the Court.

HAYNE J:   Mr Georgiou, can I ask you about the ground that was withdrawn.  Can you tell us why that ground might have succeeded? 

MR GEORGIOU:   Yes, your Honours.  It is my submission that if the original grounds of my appeal were properly argued with the legislations that were in force after the Fitzgerald Inquiry into police corruption where police verbals were classed as inadmissible if police officers did not follow the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act.  I strongly believe, because this detective did not make any handwritten notes, nor did he follow the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act, that this manslaughter conviction would have been quashed.

HAYNE J:   Now, why would that be so?  Why was the evidence wrongly received? 

MR GEORGIOU:   Your Honours, I was looking at the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act and everything in the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act in regards to admissions was not complied with, your Honours, at all.  It seemed that the only way that I could come up with that might favour the respondent was section 104(13) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act, where it says:

If a court considers this section has not been complied with or there is not enough evidence of compliance, the court may, despite the noncompliance, admit evidence to which this section applies if, having regard to the nature of and the reasons for the noncompliance ‑ ‑ ‑

I am sorry, four years ago, I could not really read at all, your Honours, and I am just finding it –

and any other relevant matters, the court is satisfied, in the special circumstances of the case, admission of the evidence would be in the interests of justice.

HAYNE J:   That is what the judge at your trial did.  Why was he wrong?

MR GEORGIOU:   Yes, it seems to me that – it is my submission that the crucial requirement that is needed for the admissibility of confessional material has been ignored.  The respondent has raised this in the application book, on page 188, pretty much saying that I denied to go back and make a – that the police officer invited me back to the recorded video and I refused to do that.  His Honour, in his redirection, has also stated that he asked me to confirm it on tape and I refused to do that.

As I decipher through the transcripts, my trial barrister raised the issue that he did not give me the opportunity, and pretty much that Detective Gordon stated that, “I felt from the full conversation I had with him that at the time he would decline.”  “Well, you didn’t take that opportunity?”  “No, I didn’t.”  “For him to decline?”  “No.”

The reason that I strongly believe that it should have been excluded is because, based on the serious nature of the original charge of murder and to prosecute a person with one intention, that intention was to sentence that person to life imprisonment, I believe there is no room for error, nor is there an excuse or an argument that the respondent can place before this honourable Court in the defence of the unrecorded alleged conversation that I say never took place.

Pretty much that I think it was just unfair that I am just dragged in a courtroom and pretty much told to sit there and everyone is just allowed to then admit evidence.  The evidence was by Detective Gordon where he made no effort to place it in his police diary at all until 12 months later.  I found that to be a bit – I could not understand that, your Honours.

I do not believe the admission by Detective Gordon – I looked into the court transcripts in the evidence in‑chief and in the cross‑examination.  There is no reference that I had prior knowledge of the gun by the Crown, that the Crown is relying on.  It is pretty much that the evidence is “What’s the story with the gun?”  Well, I got to the shops at Garbutt:

“We got to the shops at Garbutt and saw the gun and the cars and off we went.”

His Honour the trial judge turned around and said, “Now, if that is a reference to the time before the break and enter and if it is a reference to the gun that Edwards had, then you might form the view that he had knowledge that Edwards would be attending at the scene with a gun”. 

I would like for your Honours to go to – even my trial barrister said there is no – that, your Honours, it is an admission, not an admission that he knew that Mr Edwards had a gun prior to the shooting.  I am trying to find the prints – what his Honour was raising that gave preliminary instructions to the jury.  His Honour at the trial gave preliminary instructions to the jury.  He stated that, “Now, the evidence is principally what is said by the witness in the witness box.  Now, you must not speculate.  You must decide the case solely on the evidence”, your Honours.  That is the passage – that is the part what the Crown is relying on to say they are putting into context what the witness has said, your Honour.  I think that is totally unfair.  I believe in fairness that they should not be putting into context what the witness has said at all.

I am totally lost now, your Honours.  Is there any question that you would like me to ‑ ‑ ‑

HAYNE J:   No, there is no question we have, Mr Georgiou.  We have, of course, read all your papers and we have heard what you say.  There is nothing else you want to add?

MR GEORGIOU:   Yes, your Honour.  I believe that the Crown has failed to prove their case and I would like your Honours to take into account that I did dismiss legal aid because Legal Aid would not fund my trial barrister to handle my case in the Queensland Criminal Court of Appeal and I could not be present to hear what arguments were going to be placed on my behalf.  I believe Legal Aid had no right to handle my case, but they did, and they excluded what I believe to be the crucial ground of my appeal without my authority.

Secondly, the argument is that the evidence was not given ‑ secondly, that the evidence that was given was not said by the witness in the witness box, that I had prior knowledge of the gun that Mr Edwards had that night.

Finally, the whole Police Powers and Responsibilities Act was breached and there was no handwritten note, your Honours.  That is all I can come up with.  I wish I was able to get legal representation, your Honours, because I believe there are far more issues that could be raised, but since that has not happened that is all I can go by, your Honours.

HAYNE J:   Thank you, Mr Georgiou.  We need not trouble you, Ms Clare.

The decision of the Court of Appeal on the grounds argued at the hearing of the applicant’s appeal to that court is not challenged.  Insofar as the applicant now seeks to raise as a ground of appeal the admissibility of the evidence of a police officer that the applicant had admitted knowing that a co‑offender was armed with a firearm, we are not persuaded that it is arguable that the exercise of the primary judge’s discretion to permit that evidence is open to attack.

That being so, the questions which the applicant seeks to raise about the conduct of his appeal to the Court of Appeal would not fall for decision if special leave to appeal were to be granted.  Special leave is refused.

AT 1.19 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED