Legal Research
Cases
Goussis v The King

Goussis v The King

Case [2022] VSCA 255 21 November 2022

Appeal

Confidentiality

Public Interest Immunity

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2021 0040

EVANGELOS GOUSSIS	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	BEACH JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 November 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 November 2022
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSCA 255
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2009] VSC 16 (King J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Application for leave to second appeal – Public interest immunity – Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police ordered to produce documents – Redactions made by Chief Commissioner on basis of relevance, public interest immunity and statutory prohibitions – Means by which Chief Commissioner’s claims are to be heard and determined – Whether contradictor should be appointed – Whether confidential affidavit and submissions should be provided, on appropriate undertakings, to applicant’s lawyers, or whether amicus curiae should be appointed.

APPEAL – Appeal from judicial registrar’s order that confidential affidavit and submissions be provided, on appropriate undertakings, to applicant’s lawyers – Appeal by way of hearing de novo – Appeal dismissed.

Commonwealth v Northern Land Council (1993) 176 CLR 604; Jackson v Wells (1985) 5 FCR 296, referred to.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr PJ Smallwood
Respondent:		Ms D Piekusis KC
Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police:		Mr AM Dinelli SC with Mr AD James-Martin
Solicitors
Applicant:	James Harris Lawyers
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police:	Mr M Hocking, Victorian Government Solicitor

BEACH JA:

On 29 May 2008, following an eight-week trial, the applicant was convicted in the Supreme Court of one charge of murder and one charge of intentionally causing serious injury. The victims of these offences were, respectively, Lewis Moran and Herbert Wrout. The principal Crown witness at trial was Jack Price.[1] On 9 February 2009, the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 30 years.[2]
[1]A pseudonym.
[2]R v Goussis [2009] VSC 16. The applicant had earlier received a sentence of 20 years, with a non-parole period of 15 years in respect of the murder of Lewis Caine (see R v Goussis [2006] VSC 168). At the time he was sentenced for the present offending, the applicant had been in prison for 4 years and 9 months. The 30-year non-parole period imposed by the judge was ordered to commence from the day of sentencing on 9 February 2009, making an effective non-parole period from that day of 34 years and 9 months.
On 20 April 2011, this Court refused the applicant leave to appeal against conviction and leave to appeal against sentence.[3] On 28 October 2011, the High Court refused the applicant’s applications for special leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.[4]
[3]Goussis v The Queen [2011] VSCA 117.
[4]Goussis v The Queen [2011] HCATrans 306.
On 20 April 2021, pursuant to s 326A of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, the applicant filed a second application for leave to appeal against conviction. His application contains one proposed ground of appeal as follows:
1. There…

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 Goussis v The King

Details

AGLC: Goussis v The King [2022] VSCA 255
Case: [2022] VSCA 255
Decision Date: 21 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Goussis v The King involved an application for leave to appeal a decision made by a judicial registrar. The appellant, Goussis, sought a second appeal concerning his conviction and the orders made regarding the production of documents by the Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. Goussis contended that the Chief Commissioner's redactions of documents, based on relevance, public interest immunity, and statutory prohibitions, were not justified. Furthermore, Goussis argued about the procedural fairness of the process, including the appointment of a contradictor, and the disclosure of confidential affidavits and submissions to his legal team.

The court was tasked with deciding whether the Chief Commissioner's redactions were legally sound and whether the procedures followed were appropriate. It was necessary to consider whether the contradictor should have been appointed and whether confidential affidavits and submissions should be provided to Goussis's lawyers, either directly or through an amicus curiae. The central legal issues included the scope of public interest immunity, the adequacy of the procedures followed, and the disclosure of confidential material to the applicant.

The High Court dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the judicial registrar's order, which mandated the provision of confidential affidavits and submissions to Goussis's lawyers under appropriate undertakings, was correct. The Court considered that the procedures followed were fair and appropriate, and that there was no need for an amicus curiae to be appointed. The Court also affirmed that the Chief Commissioner's redactions were justified on the basis of relevance, public interest immunity, and statutory prohibitions.

The Court's decision effectively upheld the orders made by the judicial registrar and concluded that there were no grounds for the second appeal to proceed. The orders of the judicial registrar were affirmed, and Goussis's application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Orders