Jospeh Godwin (a pseudonym)[1] v The King - [2024] VSCA 225

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2024 0075

JOSPEH GODWIN (A PSEUDONYM)[1]	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

[1]Because this is an interlocutory proceeding, a pseudonym has been used in place of the name of the respondent and the reasons have been prepared in a form which omits identifying details.

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST, TAYLOR and ORR JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 July 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 October 2024
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSCA 225
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2024] VCC 466 (Judge Murphy)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Interlocutory appeal – Admissibility of expert opinion –Criminal analyst provided with call charge records for two mobile telephones opined that users of two telephones likely identical – Criminal analyst assumed cell towers had radius of 3 km – Whether criminal analyst had specialised knowledge based on experience – Whether probative value of evidence outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice – Leave to appeal refused.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Interlocutory appeal – Admissibility of expert opinion – Interpreters interpreted telephone conversations from Igbo to English – Interpreters had no formal qualifications – Interpreters were native Igbo and English speakers – Whether interpreters had specialised knowledge based on experience – Whether probative value of evidence outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice – Leave to appeal refused.

Evidence Act2008 ss 79, 137.

de la Espriella-Velasco v The Queen (2006) 31 WAR 291; Honeysett v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 122; Moreno (a pseudonym) v The King [2023] VSCA 98; Moore (a pseudonym) v The King [2024] HCA 430.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr PJ Smallwood with Mr C Glerum
Respondent:		Ms K Breckweg with Ms E Addams
Solicitors
Applicant:	Milides Lawyers
Respondent:	Mr S Bruckard, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Cth)

PRIEST JA
TAYLOR JA
ORR JA:

The applicant faces trial in the County Court on a charge of attempting to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border controlled drug contrary to ss 11.1(1) and 307.5(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth).
The central issue in the trial is whether the applicant was the user of the mobile phone number 0470628582 (the ‘582 number’). The 582 number was registered with Lycamobile in a false name. It was provided as the contact number for a consignment that was intercepted in China en route to Australia. Upon examination in China, the consignment was found to contain 19.776 kg of pure methylamphetamine concealed inside cartons of ‘body slimmer’ machines. Chinese authorities repackaged the goods without the illicit substances and the consignment was shipped to Sydney, where it was seized by the Australian Federal Police (‘AFP’). The police transported the consignment to Melbourne, where an inert substance was placed inside the cartons for the purpose of a controlled delivery.
In the lead up to and following the controlled delivery, the police intercepted various conversations on the 582 number, which were conducted in Igbo, a language spoken primarily in south eastern Nigeria. The prosecution seeks to adduce evidence of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jospeh Godwin (a pseudonym)[1] v The King and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] VSCA 225
Decision Date: 10 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Joseph Godwin (a pseudonym) v The King, the appellant, Joseph Godwin, sought an interlocutory appeal against his conviction on various criminal charges. The primary issues for determination were the admissibility of expert opinions regarding the analysis of mobile phone records and the interpretation of intercepted telephone conversations from Igbo to English. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had to determine whether the criminal analyst and the interpreters had the requisite specialised knowledge to provide admissible expert evidence, and whether the probative value of this evidence was outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.

The court examined whether the criminal analyst had the necessary specialised knowledge based on experience to opine that the users of two mobile telephones were likely identical. The analyst had assumed that cell towers had a radius of 3 km, which was a crucial part of their opinion. The court also assessed whether the interpreters, who were native Igbo and English speakers but lacked formal qualifications, had sufficient specialised knowledge based on their experience to provide a reliable interpretation of the intercepted conversations. The court had to balance the probative value of this evidence against the potential for unfair prejudice, as mandated by sections 79 and 137 of the Evidence Act 2008.

After thorough consideration, the Supreme Court concluded that the proposed grounds of appeal were without merit. The court found that the criminal analyst's opinion was based on a reasonable assumption regarding the radius of cell towers, and that the interpreters' experience provided them with the necessary specialised knowledge to offer a reliable interpretation. The probative value of this evidence was not outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. Consequently, the court held that it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

[1] A pseudonym used to protect the identity of the appellant.

Orders

Orders of the court

The proposed grounds are without merit. It is not in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal. Leave to appeal will be refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.