R v Guariglia - [2000] VSC 45

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Not Restricted

No. 7207 of 1999

THE QUEEN	Appellant
V
GEOFFREY GUARIGLIA	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Byrne J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 February 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 February 2000
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Guariglia
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 45

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr J.P. Brett	Victorian Government Solicitors
For the Respondent	Mr G. Mullaly	Stary George Myall

HIS HONOUR: I find that the respondent, Geoffrey Guariglia, is guilty of contempt of court on each of the two counts alleged in the motion. I publish my reasons.

[His Honour heard counsel on the question of penalty.]

The first count arises from his refusal to answer six questions on the Basha inquiry as a preliminary part of the trial of two persons charged with murder. The second count arises from his refusal to be sworn before the jury on the trial. I will not go through the circumstances leading up to these charges as they are already indicated in my judgment on the question of conviction.

A circumstance, however, that I should highlight is the respondent before the court had been acquitted of the charge of murder at a separate trial a few days previously. The Crown originally said that Mr Guariglia was criminally involved in the commission of the murder with the two men standing charged. But given the finding of the jury in the first trial that allegation cannot now stand. Nevertheless, it does appear that the three men were together at least on the day that the two men, as the jury ultimately found, murdered the deceased.

The question that now arises is to the appropriate penalty or punishment that should be imposed upon Mr Guariglia for his two contempts. A number of matters have been urged before me as relevant to the circumstances and I shall mention each briefly and my views upon them.

The first is the seriousness of the offence. The subject matter of the trial was murder. This is, of course, one of the most, if not the most serious offence known to the criminal calendar. Therefore the fact that his contempt was committed in the circumstances of such a trial weigh heavily in the balance.

Secondly, my perception of the whole of the evidence is that the present respondent determined at an early stage that he was not going to assist the prosecution in the trial of the two men. There has been much said of the confusion that attended the questioning at the Basha inquiry. Examination, however, of the whole of the circumstances lends support for the conclusion I have expressed.

The respondent was sworn and made a couple of very unconvincing answers which were certainly inconsistent with the overwhelming evidence that was available to the Crown as to his familiarity or knowledge of the two co-accused. Having then given some evidence-in-chief it is apparent that he had the advice of senior counsel who apparently spoke…

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 Guariglia

Details

AGLC: R v Guariglia [2000] VSC 45
Case: [2000] VSC 45
Decision Date: 14 February 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Guariglia was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria's Criminal Division, where Geoffrey Guariglia was found guilty of two counts of contempt of court. The charges stemmed from Guariglia's refusal to answer questions during a Basha inquiry and his subsequent refusal to be sworn before the jury in a murder trial. The court's task was to determine the appropriate penalty for Guariglia's contemptuous conduct.

The legal issues before the court involved assessing the gravity of Guariglia's contempt, his motivation, and whether his plea of guilty should be considered as evidence of remorse. The court had to weigh the severity of the offence, which was related to a murder trial, against Guariglia's apparent determination not to cooperate with the prosecution, despite the risks involved. The court also considered Guariglia's low IQ, although it found this factor to be of little relevance in the context of the contempt charges. Ultimately, the court was tasked with determining a sentence that would uphold the integrity of the court system while also considering the circumstances and motivations behind Guariglia's actions.

In delivering the judgment, His Honour Byrne J highlighted the seriousness of the offence and Guariglia's deliberate decision not to cooperate with the prosecution. The court rejected the notion that Guariglia's actions were driven by confusion or fear, finding instead that he had made a conscious choice not to assist the prosecution. The court also noted that Guariglia's plea of guilty to the second count should be taken into account. The sentence imposed was six months' imprisonment for the first count and nine months' imprisonment for the second count, to be served concurrently and cumulatively with the sentence Guariglia was already serving. The court did not impose any costs on the applicant.

This case underscores the importance of upholding the integrity of the court system and the duty of citizens to cooperate with legal proceedings, even in the face of personal risk. The court's decision reflects a balance between the gravity of the offence and the circumstances surrounding Guariglia's contempt, while also reinforcing the principle that the justice system cannot be hindered by the fears of witnesses.

Orders