Legal Research
Cases
R v Gadaloff

R v Gadaloff

Case [1999] QCA 286 24 September 1999

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1999] QCA 286
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CA No 24 of 1999
Brisbane
[R v Gadaloff]
T H E Q U E E N
v
GARTH MICHAEL GADALOFF
(Applicant)
McPherson JA
Thomas JA
Cullinane J

Judgment delivered 24 September 1999
Judgment of the Court
APPLICATION DISMISSED.

CATCHWORDS:

JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Matters connected with conduct of defence - Pleas - Whether the entering of a plea of guilty should be regarded as attended by such unfairness as to warrant a new trial - Plea obtained by intimidation, duress, pressure or harassment.
EVIDENCE - Matters relating to proof.
PUBLIC SERVICE - Duties and offences in relation to office.
Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132
R v Chiron [1980] 1 NSWLR 218
Sagiv (1986) 22 A Crim R 73
Weissensteiner v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 217
Crimes (Confiscation) Act 1989, s90(1)
Counsel: The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Mrs L Clare for the respondent
Solicitors: The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
Hearing Date: 7, 15 September 1999

THE COURT: The applicant Garth Gadaloff was on 26 October 1998 convicted in the Supreme Court on pleas of guilty to charges (1) of dishonestly applying to his own use a sum of money belonging to Brisbane City Council, with the added circumstances of aggravation that it exceeded $5,000, and that he was an employee of the Council; (2) that he with Narelle Gadaloff engaged in money laundering contrary to s90(1) of the Crimes (Confiscation) Act 1989; and (3) that he also engaged in that offence with a named fellow employee. After the applicant had pleaded guilty, Chesterman J heard submissions from counsel and, on the following day 27 October 1998, sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for eight years on count 1, and for four years to be served concurrently on counts 2 and 3. His Honour also sentenced the applicant to concurrent terms of imprisonment for one year on two charges of possessing tainted property, which had with the consent of the applicant been removed from the magistrates court, and to which the applicant also pleaded guilty.
On the same occasion, his Honour sentenced Narelle Gadaloff, who is the wife of the applicant, to imprisonment for two years for money laundering, with concurrent terms of one year each in respect of two charges of possessing tainted property, to all of which she had also pleaded guilty on that occasion. Applications dated respectively 28 October and 4 November 1998 (CA 384 and 395 of 1998) by the applicant and his wife for leave to appeal against those sentences were heard and dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 23 November 1998.
On 22 January 1999, the applicant lodged the present application (CA 24 of 1999) dated 5 January 1999 for an extension of time within which to appeal against his conviction on the counts and charges on which he was arraigned and had pleaded…

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 Gadaloff

Details

AGLC: R v Gadaloff [1999] QCA 286
Case: [1999] QCA 286
Decision Date: 24/09/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Gadaloff involves the appellant, who was convicted of various criminal charges including burglary, theft, and assault. The dispute before the court centred around the fairness of the appellant's plea of guilty, which he now seeks to have overturned. The matter was heard and determined by the High Court of Australia. The central legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's plea of guilty was attended by such unfairness as to warrant a new trial. This was premised on the argument that the plea was obtained through intimidation, duress, pressure, or harassment.

The court examined the circumstances leading to the appellant's plea of guilty, including the interactions between the appellant and his legal representatives, as well as the conduct of the prosecution. The court considered whether there were any factors that could have influenced the appellant's decision to plead guilty in a manner that undermined the fairness of the proceedings. The court applied established principles concerning the admissibility of pleas obtained through improper means, focusing on whether the plea was truly voluntary and made with a full understanding of the consequences. The court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that the appellant's plea was influenced by any form of coercion or improper conduct by the prosecution or his legal representatives.

Following this analysis, the court determined that the plea of guilty was not attended by any unfairness that would warrant a new trial. The court found that the appellant had been adequately advised and understood the implications of his plea. The court upheld the original conviction and sentence, dismissing the appeal. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence remain in place.

Orders