Levidis v The Queen

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on the application of Mr Levidis, with the Crown appearing for the respondent. The dispute concerned the factual basis for a jury's guilty verdict returned against Mr Levidis on a single count. The applicant's complaint centred on the sentencing judge's task of determining the factual basis for the verdict, which involved ascertaining whether Mr Levidis was the actual thief from the Myer store on a Friday night, or whether he had come into possession of the stolen property at a later time, knowing it to have been stolen.

The legal issues before the court involved the proper interpretation of a jury's verdict on a single count where the evidence could support two distinct acts of appropriation. Specifically, the court was required to consider whether the jury's verdict, on its face, indicated a unanimous agreement as to the specific act of appropriation constituting the offence. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the prosecution's failure to elect which act of appropriation it would rely upon, in circumstances where the single count was referable to two separate and mutually exclusive episodes, could lead to a situation where there was no unanimous agreement on an essential element of the offence. This also raised the question of whether the applicant could have raised a defence of autrefois convict if subsequently charged with either of the distinct acts.

The applicant's submission was that by presenting a single count that encompassed two distinct and mutually exclusive appropriations, and by not making an election, the prosecution allowed for a situation where the jury might not have reached a unanimous verdict on a crucial element of the offence. This was framed by reference to the principle that a unanimous verdict requires agreement on all essential elements. The court was therefore tasked with determining the implications of such a scenario for the validity of the conviction.