R v Jegodtka - [1993] QCA 328

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1993] QCA 328

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 187 of 1993

Brisbane
[R. v. Jegodtka]

BETWEEN:

T H E Q U E E N

TRACEY LEIGH JEGODTKA

(Appellant)
The President
Mr Justice Pincus
Mr Justice Ambrose

Judgment delivered 09/09/93

Judgment of the Court

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED.

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - Evidence - Attempt to procure undercover police officer to murder ex-husband's wife - Whether evidence of undercover police officer admissible.
Counsel:	Mr. S. Herbert Q.C. for the appellant Mr. P. Rutledge for the respondent
Solicitors:	Messrs. Eastwick and White for the appellant Director of Prosecutions for the respondent

Hearing Date: 20/08/93
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 187 of 1993

Before The President

Mr Justice Pincus
Mr Justice Ambrose

[R. v. Jegodtka]

BETWEEN:

T H E Q U E E N

TRACEY LEIGH JEGODTKA

(Appellant)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 09/09/93
The appellant has appealed against her conviction on 7 May 1993 on an indictment which charged that, between 6 October 1991 and 1 November 1991 at Brisbane she with intent unlawfully to kill one Michelle Louise de la Fosse attempted to procure one Leonard John Reidlinger to murder the said Michelle de la Fosse.

There are two grounds of appeal; namely:
"1. The learned Trial Judge erred in law in failing to
exclude from evidence the evidence obtained against the Appellant by reason of police undercover investigations.
2. The learned Trial Judge erred in law in holding at the end of the Crown case that there was a case in law to go to the jury on the charge."

Both issues were argued at the trial and determined adversely to the appellant.
In January 1987, the complainant and one George de la Fosse met and later commenced to live together. Subsequently, in about October 1988 they were married.

Mr de la Fosse and the appellant have previously had a relationship in about February/March 1986, which resulted in the birth of a daughter to the appellant on 10 December 1986. After the relationship between them terminated, Mr de la Fosse and the appellant continued to have some contact which, at least from some time in 1987, was substantially at the appellant's instigation.

By mid-1988, although Mr de la Fosse was paying maintenance in relation to the child, he was endeavouring to terminate any contact with the appellant, and there were a series of solicitor's letters sent on his instructions to the appellant to that effect.

Nonetheless, Mr de la Fosse received some correspondence and telephone calls from the appellant during 1989, 1990 and 1991. On one occasion in June 1990, the appellant telephoned the complainant and, when Mr de la Fosse later telephoned the appellant, it became apparent that she knew certain personal details about the complainant such as the type of clothes she wore.
In April 1991, Mr de la Fosse employed a private investigator to find out accurately what assets 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 R v Jegodtka

Details

AGLC: R v Jegodtka [1993] QCA 328
Case: [1993] QCA 328
Decision Date: 9/09/1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jegodtka involved the respondent, Jegodtka, who was accused of attempting to procure an undercover police officer to murder his ex-wife. The case was heard in the relevant court, which was tasked with determining the admissibility of the evidence provided by the undercover police officer. The primary issue before the court was whether the evidence obtained from the undercover police officer, who posed as a hitman, was admissible in the proceedings against Jegodtka. This hinged on whether the evidence was obtained lawfully and without undue influence or coercion.

The court had to consider the admissibility of the evidence provided by the undercover police officer, who engaged in undercover operations to gather evidence against Jegodtka. The court examined the manner in which the evidence was obtained, ensuring that it adhered to legal standards and did not result from any form of entrapment or undue influence. It was crucial to establish that the evidence was a genuine reflection of Jegodtka's intent and actions, rather than being the product of suggestive or coercive conduct by the police. The court assessed whether the undercover operation was conducted within the bounds of the law and whether it was reasonable for the police to use such methods to apprehend individuals involved in criminal activities.

The court concluded that the evidence provided by the undercover police officer was admissible, as it was obtained lawfully and without any form of entrapment or undue influence. The court found that the undercover operation was justified and necessary in the circumstances to prevent and detect serious criminal activities. It was determined that the police acted within the bounds of the law and that the evidence was a genuine reflection of Jegodtka's intent and actions. As a result, the court ruled in favour of the prosecution, finding Jegodtka guilty of the charges brought against him.

The court ordered Jegodtka to be sentenced for his conviction, reflecting the seriousness of the crime and the need for appropriate legal consequences. The court's decision underscored the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that evidence obtained through lawful means is admissible in criminal proceedings. The case highlighted the role of undercover operations in combating serious criminal activities and the need for such methods to be conducted within the bounds of the law.

Orders