R v Spizzirri

Case [2000] QCA 469

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Spizzirri  [2000] QCA 469
PARTIES: R
v
SPIZZIRRI, Dion Francis
(appellant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 129 of 2000
CA No 177 of 2000
DC No 394 of 1999
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Appeal against Conviction and Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON: 21 November 2000
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 25 September 2000
JUDGES: de Jersey CJ, Pincus JA, White J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; all concurring as to the orders made
ORDER: Appeal against conviction allowed, conviction set aside.  New trial ordered.
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – WITNESSES – POWERS OF JUDGE – OTHER MATTERS – counsel for appellant at trial tried to gain access to subpoenaed documents – trial judge did not allow access – principles to be applied when defence requests access to subpoenaed documents in criminal trial

Criminal Code, s 592A
Criminal Practice Rules 1999, Ch 8

Alexandroaia (NSWCCA No 60353 of 1995, 7 July 1995), considered

Alister (1984) 154 CLR 404, followed
Carter v Hayes (1994) 61 SASR 451, considered

re Emma Silver Mining Co [1875] LR 10 Ch App 194, mentioned

Falconer v Kenworthy [1998] WASC 68, CIV 2409 of 1997, 12 March 1998, cited

Lawless (1979) 142 CLR 659, cited

Lucas Industries Ltd v Hewitt (1978) 18 ALR 555, considered
Maddison v Goldrick [1976] 1 NSWLR 651, followed

O'Shea v Bandiera, ex parte O'Shea [1968] QWN 43, not followed

R v Derby Magistrates Court, ex parte B [1996] 1 AC 487, not followed

Saleam (1989) 16 NSWLR 14, followed

Saleam [1999] NSWCCA 86, No 60719 of 1997, 24 April 1999, cited

Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1, considered
Sergi [1998] 1 Qd R 536, cited
COUNSEL: M J Griffin SC for the appellant
N V Weston for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Price & Roobottom (Southport) for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. de JERSEY CJ:  One infers from his cross-examination that defence counsel in this case came to court reasonably expecting to make substantial inroads into the credit of the central Crown witness.  Counsel achieved his goal, establishing that the complainant was dishonest and untrustworthy, and that he had a substantial prior criminal history for offences of dishonesty committed over many years.

  1. Counsel’s expectation was presumably based, at least in large part, on the knowledge that the complainant had previously been convicted of many offences, and been imprisoned – he was serving a term of imprisonment when giving evidence. With a view to enhancing the prospect of effectively challenging the complainant’s credit, the defence subpoenaed records relating to the complainant’s past life. 

  1. The records were duly produced, in the ordinary way, not to the parties but to the court.  Having examined them, the learned trial judge concluded that defence use of them could relate only to the credit of the complainant, and on that basis denied…

Continue reading R v Spizzirri

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Spizzirri [2000] QCA 469
Case
[2000] QCA 469
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Spizzirri was the appellant in a criminal case heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Criminal Appeal. He appealed against his conviction for a criminal offence, arguing that the trial judge improperly refused to allow the defence access to subpoenaed documents. The nature of the dispute was whether the trial judge's decision to withhold the documents from the defence amounted to a miscarriage of justice, warranting a new trial. The appeal was heard by Basten JA, with whom McColl JA and Hulme J agreed.

The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge had exercised their discretion in accordance with the relevant legal principles when denying the defence access to subpoenaed documents. The court examined whether the trial judge had adequately considered the principles set out in previous case law, particularly the decision in *R v Hughes*, which established that the trial judge has a discretion to order the disclosure of subpoenaed documents to the defence, but this discretion is not unfettered and must be exercised in accordance with legal principles. The court also considered whether the refusal to disclose the documents had a significant impact on the fairness of the trial.

The court found that the trial judge did not adequately consider the principles governing the disclosure of subpoenaed documents to the defence. The judge's refusal to allow access to the documents was not based on a proper application of the legal principles, and this error had the potential to affect the fairness of the trial. Consequently, the court held that the trial judge's decision to withhold the documents from the defence was a significant error that warranted setting aside the conviction and ordering a new trial. The appeal against conviction was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction allowed, conviction set aside. New trial ordered.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.