Lagopodis v The Queen; Kiely v The Queen

These proceedings before the High Court of Australia involved two applicants, Lagopodis and Kiely, who had both been convicted of murder. The Crown was represented by Mr. Blanch QC and Mr. Roser, while Mr. Papayanni appeared for the applicant Kiely, and Mr. Wendler and Mrs. Bridger appeared for the applicant Lagopodis. The cases were heard together.

The central legal issue before the Court concerned the directions given to the jury regarding common purpose. Specifically, the applicants argued that the trial judge's directions on this matter were inadequate or erroneous. This included a debate as to whether the Crown case relied on common purpose in a strict sense or a broader notion of joint venture, and whether the jury was properly instructed on the principles of acting as a principal and an accessory.

The Court of Criminal Appeal had found that the complaints regarding the directions on common purpose were not made out, characterising the Crown case as relating to joint conduct aptly described as "common purpose" in a broader sense, referencing *Sinfield's* case. However, the applicants contended that the directions were flawed, particularly in relation to the distinction between a principal and an accessory, and that the trial judge had become confused, at times referencing evidence from one applicant's case when considering the other. The applicants argued that the jury was not properly directed on the concept of acting as a principal in the second degree.

The applicants sought special leave to appeal to the High Court. The transcript does not contain the final orders or outcome of the special leave applications.