Reg v Rogerson - [1991] HCATrans 311

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No Sl43 of 1990
B e t w e e n
THE QUEEN

Applicant

and
ROGER CALEB ROGERSON

First Respondent

MORRIS ENRICO NOWYTARGER

Second Respondent

NICHOLAS JOHN PALTOS

Third Respondents

Application for special
leave to appeal

Rogerson

5/11/91

MASON CJ
BRENNAN J

DEANE J

TOOHEY J

MCHUGH J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 5 NOVEMBER 1991, AT 10.16 AM

MR K. MASON, QC, Solicitor-General for New South Wales: If

the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend,
MR G.E. SMITH, for the applicant. (instructed by
the Director of Public Prosecutions (New South
Wales)

MR K.G. HORLER, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear for the first-named respondent, Roger Caleb Rogerson, with

my learned friend, MR P. BYRNE. (instructed by
O'Connor Bellamy)

MR T.E.F. HUGHES. QC:

May it please the Court, I appear

with my learned friend, MR A.J. PHILPOTT, for the
second respondent, Nowytarger. (instructed by
O'Connor Bellamy)

MR R. RICHTER, QC:

May it please the Court, I appear with

my learned friend, MRS.A. SHIRREFS, for the third
respondent, Paltos. (instructed by Pryles &
Defteros)

MR D.J. ROSE: If the Court pleases, I appear for the

Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, intervening
to support the applicant, but limited to the
principles concerning the grant of special leave.
(instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor)

MR J.J. DOYLE, OC, Solicitor-General for South Australia:

If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned
friend, MS J.F. LEE-JUSTINE, to intervene on behalf
of the State of South Australia, also to support
the applicant, and likewise confined to the issue
of the proper principles on a grant of special
leave. (instructed by the Crown Solicitor for
South Australia)
As my submissions are confined to the proper

approach to the interpretation of section 35A, I seek leave to address submissions to that issue.

MASON CJ: Any opposition to the grant of leave? Leave is

granted, Mr Solicitor. Yes, Mr Solicitor for
New South Wales.

MR MASON:

Your Honours, the case at trial is summarized

quite conveniently in the written submissions filed
on behalf of Mr Rogerson before the Court of
Criminal Appeal and in volume IV of the application
book, pages 876-877, there appears a summary of the
Crown case and a summary of the defence case in
under one page:
Rogerson and Nowytarger placed $119,000 into

bank accounts in false names. On 1 July 1985
they closed the accounts and were filmed doing
so. They later became aware of this fact and
realised that Rogerson "would have to have an

Rogerson

5/11/91

explanation for having a large sum of money in
false names in the bank" because "an
investigation would take place ... as to the
source of the money and its legitimacy".

Your Honours, at that stage Mr Rogerson was a
police officer, but a suspended police officer.
The police became aware of it on 16 July, the
Taxation Department on 19 July.…

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 Reg v Rogerson

Details

AGLC: Reg v Rogerson [1991] HCATrans 311
Case: [1991] HCATrans 311
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the High Court of Australia concerned an application for special leave to appeal by Morris Enrico Nowytarger against the first respondent, Roger Caleb Rogerson, and the third respondent, Paltos. The dispute arose from allegations that Rogerson and Nowytarger placed $119,000 into bank accounts under false names. Upon becoming aware that their actions had been filmed, they allegedly agreed with Paltos and another individual, Karp, to fabricate a story about the sale of a Bentley motor vehicle to explain the source of the funds. This fabricated story was intended to interfere with the police investigation into the legitimacy of the money.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the actions of the respondents, specifically the concocting of a false explanation for the source of funds, constituted the offence of improperly interfering with the administration of justice, which includes the process of investigating crime by police. The court was required to consider the nature of the agreement to create a backdated sale agreement for the Bentley and the subsequent assertions of its validity to the police as evidence of this interference.

The court's reasoning focused on the agreement to "concoct a story" to explain the source of the money, which was understood to be unlawfully obtained. The creation of a backdated sale agreement for the Bentley, which was common ground at trial, was central to this fabricated explanation. By asserting the validity of this agreement to the police during interviews, Rogerson, Nowytarger, and Karp allegedly sought to mislead the investigation and improperly interfere with the process of determining the source and legitimacy of the funds. The court considered that the purpose of backdating the agreement was a key element in determining whether it was part of an attempt to improperly interfere with public justice.

Orders