Legal Research
Cases
Madafferi v The King

Madafferi v The King

Case [2025] VSCA 114 26 May 2025

Appeal

Discovery & Disclosure

Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2020 0045

FRANCESCO MADAFFERI	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	McCANN JR
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	15 April 2025, 7 May 2025, 26 May 2025 and 28 May 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	26 May 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 114	Revised on: 29 May 2025

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Practice and procedure – Application for production pursuant to s 317 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 – Where application directed to Department of Premier and Cabinet as record holder of submissions made to the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants – Where the Department is poorly placed to identify, assess or present submissions to the Court in respect of objections to production – Where it is suitable for the Court to inspect the subject documents in the absence of an objection to production or claim of public interest immunity – Where it is in the interests of justice to order production of specific documents.

Criminal Procedure Act 2009; Inquiries Act 2014; Evidence Act 2008.

Zirilli v The Queen [2021] VSCA 174; Polimeni v The Queen [2022] VSCA 20; State of Victoria (Department of Justice) v Lane [2012] VSC 328; Zirilli v The Queen (2021) 287 A Crim R 407; Ragg v Magistrates’ Court of Victoria (2008) 18 VR 300; Ryan v State of Victoria [2015] VSCA 353; Zirilli v The King [2023] VSCA 64; Alister v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 404; R v Debono [2012] VSC 476; Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1; Commonwealth v Northern Land Council (1993) 176 CLR 604; R v Saleam (1989) 16 NSWLR 14; Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1999) 201 CLR 49; Madafferi v The Queen [2021] VSCA 1; Zirilli v The Queen [2021] VSCA 2; Polimeni v The Queen [2021] VSCA 329.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Ms C Boston SC with Ms S Molyneux (15 April 2025, 7 May 2025) Ms S Molyneux (26 May 2025) -- (28 May 2025)
Respondent:		Ms D Karamicov (15 April 2025, 7 May 2025, 28 May 2025) Mr J Hannebery KC (26 May 2025)
Department of Premier and Cabinet		Ms S Keating with Mr A James-Martin (15 April 2025) Ms S Keating with Mr J E Hartley (7 May 2025, 28 May 2025) Ms S Keating (26 May 2025)
Solicitors
Applicant:	Ms R Parker (28 May 2025), Galbally Parker Lawyers
Respondent:	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Department of Premier and Cabinet	Russell Kennedy Lawyers

MCCANN JR:

On 26 August 2014 Francesco Madafferi (‘the applicant’) was convicted of trafficking a controlled drug in a commercial quantity. On 17 December 2014, he was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 7 years. In March 2020 the applicant applied for leave to appeal against this conviction for a second time pursuant to Part 6.4 of the Criminal…

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 Madafferi v The King

Details

AGLC: Madafferi v The King [2025] VSCA 114
Case: [2025] VSCA 114
Decision Date: 26 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Madafferi v The King, the appellant sought the production of specific documents under section 317 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, which were held by the Department of Premier and Cabinet, the record holder of submissions made to the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants. The appellant aimed to use these documents in his ongoing criminal proceedings, and the application was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the documents should be produced in light of objections raised by the Department of Premier and Cabinet and the potential invocation of public interest immunity.

The court found that the Department of Premier and Cabinet was not well-equipped to evaluate or present submissions to the court regarding objections to the production of the documents. Additionally, there was no objection to the production of the documents, nor was there a claim of public interest immunity. The court considered it appropriate to inspect the documents in the absence of any such objections. Furthermore, the court determined that it was in the interests of justice to order the production of the specific documents in question. This conclusion was based on the need for transparency and fairness in the criminal proceedings, as well as the lack of any compelling reason to withhold the documents.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the principles of open justice and the need to ensure that all relevant information is available for the fair determination of the case. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the legal process and the necessity of avoiding any potential prejudice to the appellant's right to a fair trial. The court's decision to order the production of the documents was also influenced by the absence of any objections from the relevant parties and the lack of any claim of public interest immunity. This outcome demonstrates the court's commitment to upholding the principles of justice and ensuring that all relevant information is considered in the criminal proceedings.

The final orders of the court included the direction that the Department of Premier and Cabinet produce the specific documents to the appellant within a specified timeframe. The court also emphasised the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of any sensitive information contained within the documents, to the extent possible. This decision reinforces the court's commitment to ensuring that the legal process is conducted fairly and transparently, while also taking into account the need to protect sensitive information where appropriate.

Orders