JUDGE:	Fullerton J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	5–9, 12–13, 15–16, 19–23, 26–29 February, 1, 4–8, 12–15, 18–22, 25–26 March, 4–5, 8–10, 12, 15–16, 19, 22–24 April, 6–10, 20–23, 27–29, 31 May, 3, 25 June, 9–11 July 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 November 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Mokbel v The King
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 725

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Applications for leave to appeal — Referral pursuant to s 319A of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 with respect to the conduct of a registered police informer and the conduct of Victoria Police and consequential matters — Victoria Police’s duty of disclosure and whether it was breached — Scope of the Director of Public Prosecutions’ duty of disclosure — Whether the Director breached his duty of disclosure — Impact of the duty of disclosure on criminal proceedings including plea negotiations — What constitutes a lawyer/client relationship in the absence of a written retainer — Scope of lawyer’s duties — Whether Victoria Police engaged in conduct which was unlawful or improper in the investigation, extradition and prosecution of the applicant.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the applicant	Ms J Condon KC with Dr J Murphy and Ms E Fargher	Sarah Tricarico Lawyers Pty Ltd
For the respondent	Mr D Glynn with Mr T Wood and Mr S Thomas	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Chief Commissioner of Police	Ms S Maharaj KC with Ms M Pekevska and Mr J Bayly	Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1

The application for leave to appeal pursuant to s 326A of the Criminal Procedure Act....... 1
An overview of the procedural history of the applicant’s criminal matters in this Court and their provenance........................................................................................................................... 3
The first indictment............................................................................................................. 3
The second indictment........................................................................................................ 4
The sentence on the Quills, Orbital and Magnum offences.......................................... 6
Appellate review.................................................................................................................. 6
The referral questions in overview................................................................................... 7
The contested facts in overview........................................................................................ 9
An overview of the position of the parties.................................................................... 15

Issues of actual or constructive knowledge............................................................................ 20
The onus and standard of proof............................................................................................... 21
The nature of the evidence......................................................................................................... 24
The oral evidence............................................................................................................... 24
The documentary evidence.............................................................................................. 26
Ms Gobbo did not give evidence..................................................................................... 28
Sections 59 and 60 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)........................................................ 28
The applicant’s evidence.................................................................................................. 31

The “Lawyer X” cases................................................................................................................. 32

A chronology of the police operations......................................................................................... 33

The Purana Taskforce................................................................................................................. 34
Phase 1................................................................................................................................. 34
Phase 2................................................................................................................................. 37

Operation Posse........................................................................................................................... 38
Operation Kayak......................................................................................................................... 41
The Plutonium trial..................................................................................................................... 44
Operation Landslip..................................................................................................................... 45
Operation Landslip 2.................................................................................................................. 49
Operation Matchless................................................................................................................... 50
Operation Quills.......................................................................................................................... 53
Operation Orbital........................................................................................................................ 58
Operation Spake.......................................................................................................................... 61
Operation Magnum.................................................................................................................... 64
Operation Macaw........................................................................................................................ 66
Operation Gotta........................................................................................................................... 67
Events subsequent to the applicant’s plea............................................................................... 68
The issue of disclosure (finally) surfaces................................................................................. 70

Referral question 1A........................................................................................................................ 77

The parties’ interpretation of this question............................................................................. 77
The ultimate position of the parties.......................................................................................... 79
“Rolling”…

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 Mokbel v The King

Details

AGLC: Mokbel v The King [2024] VSC 725
Case: [2024] VSC 725
Decision Date: 25 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mokbel v The King involved the applicant, Mokbel, appealing against his conviction and sentence for various criminal offences. The appeal concerned the conduct of a police informer, the actions of Victoria Police, and the scope of the Director of Public Prosecutions' duty of disclosure. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence, arguing that there were significant breaches of his legal rights during the investigation, extradition, and prosecution process.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Victoria Police breached their duty of disclosure, whether the Director of Public Prosecutions breached his duty of disclosure, and the impact of these alleged breaches on the criminal proceedings, including plea negotiations. Additionally, the court considered whether the conduct of Victoria Police in the investigation, extradition, and prosecution of the applicant was unlawful or improper. The court also examined the nature of the lawyer/client relationship and the scope of a lawyer’s duties in the absence of a written retainer.

In its reasoning, the court held that there were indeed breaches of the duty of disclosure by both Victoria Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions, which had a significant impact on the applicant’s right to a fair trial. The court found that the breaches were substantial and affected the fairness of the proceedings, including the plea negotiations. The court determined that the breaches went beyond mere technicalities and had a real and substantial impact on the outcome of the case. Consequently, the court granted the applicant leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence, and the case was remitted to the County Court for a re-trial. The court found that the alleged unlawful and improper conduct by Victoria Police warranted a new trial to ensure a fair process.

Orders