R v Bellino - [1992] QCA 97

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1992] QCA 097

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 185 of 1991 C.A. No. 214 of 1991

Before the Court of Appeal

Mr Justice McPherson

Mr Justice Pincus

Mr Justice Byrne

T H E Q U E E N

GERALDO BELLINO and VITTORIO CONTE

Appellants

C.A. No. 202 of 1991 C.A. No. 203 of 1991

T H E Q U E E N

GERALDO BELLINO and VITTORIO CONTE

Respondents

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND

Appellant

JUDGMENT - BYRNE J.

Delivered the 14th day of May, 1992

Counsel:W.T. McMillan with him M. Darmody for appellant Conte

Bellino appearing for himself

F.J. Clair with him R.P. Devlin for the Crown

Solicitors:Legal Aid Office for the appellant Conte

Special Prosecutor for the Crown

Hearing dates:29th - 30th January and 3rd - 6th February, 1992

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 185 of 1991 C.A. No. 214 of 1991

Before the Court of Appeal

Mr Justice McPherson

Mr Justice Pincus

Mr Justice Byrne

T H E Q U E E N

GERALDO BELLINO and VITTORIO CONTE

Appellants

C.A. No. 202 of 1991 C.A. No. 203 of 1991

T H E Q U E E N

GERALDO BELLINO and VITTORIO CONTE

Respondents

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND

Appellant

JUDGMENT - PINCUS J.A.

Delivered the Fourteenth day of May 1992.

I have read the reasons for judgment prepared by McPherson

J.A. I gratefully adopt his Honour's summary of the principal

features of the evidence. I agree with his Honour's conclusions

on all aspects of the case, except the Crown address as against Bellino. As is explained in the reasons of McPherson J.A.,

Bellino submitted that he was led by remarks of the trial judge to misapprehend the nature of the advantage which was available to him if he gave no evidence; Bellino said in effect that he

thought the Crown's address would, if he gave no evidence, have

to avoid altogether discussion of the question of his guilt, by

reason of the provisions of s.619 of the Code. Bellino asserted that he would, but for his misapprehension on this point, have

given evidence, as he did at the committal stage. As will

appear, I am of opinion that Bellino's appeal must, on this
ground, be upheld.

In these reasons, there is discussion of three points only:

the question of corroboration, the allegedly ambiguous verdicts
with respect to counts 4 and 5 and, lastly, the Crown's address.

Corroboration

As is explained by McPherson J.A., the judge told the jury

that there were three matters capable of constituting

corroboration in respect of counts 1, 3, 4 and 5. I agree with
McPherson J.A. that the judge's direction was correct.

Section 632 of the Code requires the jury to be given a warning of the danger of acting on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice or accomplices and the general practice which appears to have developed is for the court to identify for the jury evidence which is capable…

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 R v Bellino

Details

AGLC: R v Bellino [1992] QCA 97
Case: [1992] QCA 97
Decision Date: 14/05/1992

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Bellino, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland was presented with appeals against convictions by Geraldo Bellino and Vittorio Conte, who were found guilty of official corruption. The court heard arguments regarding the sufficiency of corroboration for the accomplice's testimony, the validity of the verdicts, and the fairness of the trial. The court also considered whether the Crown's address to the jury complied with the relevant statutory provisions.

The court found that the trial judge's directions on corroboration were correct, and the jury was adequately warned of the need for corroboration of the accomplice's testimony. With respect to the verdicts, the court determined that they were valid without a statement of the basis for the jury's decision. The court also found that the Crown's address did not contravene the relevant statutory provisions, but the trial judge's assurance to Bellino that the prosecutor would not address his guilt at all if he chose not to give evidence created an expectation that was not met, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed Bellino's appeal, set aside his convictions, and ordered a new trial for counts 1, 3, 4, and 5. Conte's appeal against his conviction was dismissed.

Orders