Legal Research
Cases
Regina v Giaccio

Regina v Giaccio

Case [1997] SASC 6103 29 April 1997

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

COX, MILLHOUSE AND PERRY JJ

Criminal law - evidence - judicial discretion to admit or exclude evidence - appellants convicted for soliciting to murder - evidence admitted of telephone calls by police informer and undercover police officer to appellants - calls audio-taped by Crown witness who held tape recorder near telephone hand-piece - whether this amounted to an impermissible interception of the calls under Telecommunications (Interception) Act (C/w) - whether Listening Devices Act applied to this situation or to recording in motel room of meeting between undercover police officer and appellants - whether Criminal Law(Undercover Operations) Act affected admissibility questions - whether improper of police to introduce an undercover officer to obtain admissions from the appellants of soliciting police informer to murder when they should rather have sought to question appellants openly about alleged earlier crime - whether entrapment operations should in principle be pursued beyond commission of first offence - correctness or propriety of jury directions on motive and prior inconsistent statements and other matters - impossibility defence. Appeals against sentence for soliciting to commit murder - entrapment - offer by one appellant to give evidence against the other. Criminal LawConsolidation Act 1935 s12b; Criminal Law (Undercover Operations) Act 1995 ; Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979ss5, 6, 7, 63,77,78; Listening Devices Act 1972 ss3, 4, 5, 6, 7; Telephonic Communications Act 1960 , referred to. Peacock v R (1911) 13 CLR 619; R v Nguyen (1989) 50 SASR 361, applied. R v Pfennig (No.1) (1992) 57 SASR 507; R v Smith and Turner (1994) 63 SASR 123, distinguished. R v Kristo (1989) 39 A Crim R 86; Davis & Hyland v R (1995) 183 LSJS 186; R v Albu (1995) 65 SASR 439; R v Martelli (1995) 83 A Crim R 550; Ridgeway v R (1995) 184 CLR 19; R v Frantzis (1996) 66 SASR 558; Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54; R v Bodsworth (unreported, 8 September 1994); Carbone v Gillam (1995) 32 IPR 385; Miller v Miller (1978) 141 CLR 269; R v Migliorni and Others [1981] Tas R 80; R v Curran & Torney [1983] 2 VR
133; R v Oliver (1984) 57 ALR 543; Hilton v Wells (1985) 59 ALJR 396; Edelsten v Investigating Committee of NSW (1986) 7 NSWLR 222; R v Edelsten (1990) 21 NSWLR 542; R v Green (1996) 85 A Crim R 229; R v Dolan (1992) 58 SASR 501; R v Webb & Hay (1992) 59 SASR 563, discussed. T v Medical Board (1992) 58 SASR
382; R v Sharp (1983) 33 SASR 366; Plomp v R (1963) 110 CLR 234; R v Hodge
(1838) 2 Lew CC 227; 168 ER 1136; Martin v Osborne (1936) 55 CLR 367, considered.

ADELAIDE, 19 March 1997 (hearing), 29 April 1997 (decision).

#DATE 29:4:1997

Appellant Luciano Giaccio:

Counsel: Mr N Vadasz

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 Regina v Giaccio

Details

AGLC: Regina v Giaccio [1997] SASC 6103
Case: [1997] SASC 6103
Decision Date: 29 April 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeals against conviction and sentence of Luciano Giaccio and John Richard Edginton were heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal of South Australia. The appellants were convicted for soliciting to commit murder and sentenced to imprisonment with non-parole periods. The appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed by the Court. The court considered various grounds of appeal, including the admissibility of evidence obtained through undercover operations, the legality of the police methods, and the propriety of jury directions. The court found that the evidence was properly admitted, the police methods were not improper, and any errors in the jury directions did not prejudice the appellants' right to a fair trial. The court also found that the sentences were appropriate given the seriousness of the crimes.

Orders