SCAFFIDI-GENNARINO -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 46

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 46
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:145/2001	Heard:	13 FEBRUARY 2002
Coram:	MALCOLM CJ ANDERSON J WHEELER J	Delivered:	13/03/02
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	VINCENZO SCAFFIDI-GENNARINO THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Perjury False statement in affidavit sworn by solicitor in support of application for stay of warrant of execution Whether false testimony material to a question in the judicial proceeding Criminal law Direction to jury Character evidence
Legislation:	Criminal Code, s 124
Case References:	Nil BRK & Ors [2001] WASCA 161 Christianos v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 9217; 17 December 1991 Eaton v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930056; 8 February 1993 MacKenzie v R (1996) 190 CLR 348 Melbourne v R (1999) 198 CLR 1 Menner v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970702; 15 December 1997 Policy Nominees Pty Ltd v Stuart McDougall & Anor, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 8768; 12 March 1991 Wedd v R (2000) 115 A Crim R 205

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : SCAFFIDI-GENNARINO -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 46 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ

ANDERSON J

WHEELER J

HEARD : 13 FEBRUARY 2002 DELIVERED : 13 MARCH 2002 FILE NO/S : CCA 145 of 2001 BETWEEN : VINCENZO SCAFFIDI-GENNARINO

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Perjury - False statement in affidavit sworn by solicitor in support of application for stay of warrant of execution - Whether false testimony material to a question in the judicial proceeding

Criminal law - Direction to jury - Character evidence

Legislation:

Criminal Code, s 124

(Page 2)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr M T Trowell QC & Mr W J Chesnutt

Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC

Solicitors:

Appellant : Mark Andrews & Associates

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

BRK & Ors [2001] WASCA 161
Christianos v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 9217; 17 December 1991
Eaton v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930056; 8 February 1993
MacKenzie v R (1996) 190 CLR 348
Melbourne v R (1999) 198 CLR 1
Menner v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970702; 15 December 1997
Policy Nominees Pty Ltd v Stuart McDougall & Anor, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 8768; 12 March 1991
Wedd v R (2000) 115 A Crim R 205

(Page 3)

1 MALCOLM CJ: In my opinion this appeal should be dismissed for the reasons to be published by Anderson J with which I am in entire agreement.

2 ANDERSON J: On 4 October 2001, the appellant was convicted after trial of four counts of perjury in affidavits which…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Scaffidi-Gennarino v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] WASCA 46
Decision Date: 13 MARCH 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Scaffidi-Gennarino v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of perjury based on a false statement made in an affidavit supporting an application for a stay of execution of a warrant. The High Court of Australia reviewed the decision of the intermediate appellate court. The appellant was charged with making a false statement in an affidavit, which was part of a larger criminal proceeding involving allegations of drug trafficking. The issue before the court was whether the false statement was material to a question in the judicial proceeding, as required by the perjury provisions under the Commonwealth Criminal Code.

The central legal issue was whether the appellant's false statement in the affidavit was material to the judicial proceeding. The court considered whether the false statement had the potential to influence the judicial proceeding, particularly in relation to the application for a stay of execution of the warrant. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge's direction to the jury on the issue of character evidence was appropriate. The court found that the appellant's false statement in the affidavit was indeed material, as it could have influenced the decision regarding the stay of execution. The court also concluded that the trial judge's direction to the jury was adequate in the context of the evidence presented.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction of the appellant. The court held that the false statement was material because it could have affected the outcome of the judicial proceeding. The court further found that the trial judge's direction to the jury was appropriate, given the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction for perjury was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.