Meissner v The Queen

Joseph Ladislaus Meissner applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. The applicant had been charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice by improperly endeavouring to influence Virginia Perger to enter a plea of guilty to a charge of making a false declaration. Ms Perger had initially intended to plead not guilty to that charge, but subsequently changed her plea to guilty. The Crown's case was that this change of plea was induced by the applicant's conduct, which involved bribery and intimidation.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the evidence presented by the Crown was sufficient to establish the applicant's guilt for attempting to pervert the course of justice. Specifically, the court was required to consider whether the applicant's actions, as evidenced by secretly recorded conversations, amounted to an improper endeavour to influence Ms Perger's plea, and whether this influence led to an actual perversion of justice, thereby constituting an attempt. The applicant argued that the charge was one of "attempt" but the Crown's case relied on evidence of an "actual perversion" of justice.

The High Court considered the Crown's opening submissions, which detailed that an amount of money was paid into Ms Perger's bank account by the applicant around the time her case was due to go to trial. This payment coincided with Ms Perger changing her solicitor and her plea to guilty. The Crown prosecutor asserted that the applicant made comments consistent with having caused Ms Perger to plead guilty. The court noted that the indictment alleged an improper influence to enter a plea of guilty, and the background indicated Ms Perger had previously intended to defend the matters.