Legal Research
Cases
Papazoglou v The Queen

Papazoglou v The Queen

Case [2010] VSCA 201 13 August 2010

Appeal

Conviction

Collateral evidence rule

Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2008 0680

ATHANASIOS PAPAZOGLOU	Appellant
	v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES	MAXWELL P, ASHLEY JA and COGHLAN AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	19 October 2009 and 20 October 2009
DATE OF ORDERS	20 October 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT AND FURTHER ORDERS	13 August 2010
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2010] VSCA 201
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	R v Papazoglou (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Leckie, 24 April 2008 (date of verdict), 2 June 2008 (date of sentence))

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Jury directions – Consciousness of guilt – Post-offence conduct – Prosecutor invited jury to view accused’s post-offence conduct as implied admission – Trial turned on jury’s assessment of credibility of complainants and accused – No direction given to jury about how to use evidence of implied admission – Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193 applied – Convictions quashed – Whether Court should order retrial or direct verdicts of acquittal – Retrial ordered.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Indecent assault – Evidence incapable of establishing assault – Convictions quashed – Verdicts of acquittal on indecent assault counts – Whether Court should order retrial on same allegations – Whether double jeopardy – AJS v The Queen (2007) 235 CLR 505, Island Maritime Ltd v Filipowski (2006) 226 CLR 328 applied – Retrial ordered.

EVIDENCE – Collateral evidence rule – Cross-examination of complainant as to credit – Whether defence should have been permitted to lead evidence going only to credit – Complainant’s credit not a fact in issue – Evidence should have been excluded – Nicholls v The Queen (2005) 219 CLR 196 applied.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr R Richter QC with Mr M J Croucher	Yianoulatos
For the Crown	Mr J D McArdle QC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P

COGHLAN AJA:

After a trial in the County Court, the appellant[1] was convicted of 10 counts of sexual offending. There were two complainants, to whom we shall refer as L and S respectively. They are sisters. Counts 1–8 related to L; counts 9 and 10 related to S.
[1]The appellant was granted leave to appeal on 20 October 2009 by this Court.

The appellant was sentenced as follows:

Count

Offence

Maximum

Sentence

Concurrency[2]

1

Indecent assault

5y

1y

1y

2

Sexual penetration of a child under 10

20y

5y

Base

3

Indecent assault

5y

1y

1y

4

Sexual penetration of a child aged between 10 and 16

10y

3y

2y

5

Indecent assault

5y

2y

2y

6

Sexual penetration of a child aged between 10 and 16

10y

5y

3y

7

Indecent assault

5y

2y

2y

8

Indecent assault

5y

2y

2y

9

Indecent assault

5y

2y

None

10

Indecent assault

5y

1y

1y

Total effective sentence: 10y

Non-parole period: 6y

[2]As the appellant was sentenced as a serious sexual offender in relation to Counts 3–10 inclusive, the sentences had to be served cumulatively unless the…

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 Papazoglou v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Papazoglou v The Queen [2010] VSCA 201
Case: [2010] VSCA 201
Decision Date: 13 August 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Papazoglou v The Queen, the High Court of Australia was called upon to consider an appeal against the appellant’s conviction, following his trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant, who was convicted of indecent assault and other charges, sought to overturn his convictions based on various grounds including the trial judge’s directions to the jury regarding the interpretation of his post-offence conduct, the sufficiency of the evidence for the indecent assault charges, and the admissibility of certain evidence relating to the complainant’s credibility. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge’s directions to the jury were adequate, whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the indecent assault convictions, and whether certain collateral evidence should have been excluded.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the trial judge’s failure to properly direct the jury on the use of evidence of the appellant’s post-offence conduct as an implied admission of guilt constituted a miscarriage of justice, whether the evidence was sufficient to support the indecent assault convictions, and whether certain collateral evidence about the complainant’s credibility should have been excluded. The Court had to assess the adequacy of the jury directions, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the appropriateness of the admissibility of the collateral evidence, drawing on relevant precedents.

The Court found that the trial judge’s directions to the jury concerning the appellant’s post-offence conduct were inadequate, as no direction was given on how the jury should consider such evidence. This omission was held to be a miscarriage of justice, leading to the quashing of the convictions. The Court also concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish the indecent assault charges, and thus ordered verdicts of acquittal on those counts. Additionally, the Court held that certain collateral evidence regarding the complainant’s credibility should not have been admitted, as it was not a fact in issue in the trial. The Court ordered a retrial on the remaining charges, finding that the errors did not engage the principle of double jeopardy.

The Court ordered that the appellant’s convictions be quashed and that he be acquitted on the indecent assault counts. The Court further ordered that a retrial be held on the remaining charges, as the errors identified did not result in a final determination of the appellant’s guilt or innocence on those charges. This decision underscores the importance of proper jury directions, the sufficiency of evidence in criminal trials, and the application of the collateral evidence rule.

Orders