R v Theophanous

(2003) 141 A Crim R 216; [2003] VSCA 78

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Parliamentary privilege
3. › Cross-examination concerning proceedings in Parliament
4. › Whether breach of Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth), s 16(3)
5. › Whether substantial miscarriage of justice
6. › Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth), s 16(3)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Conspiracy to defraud Commonwealth
3. › Directions to jury
4. › Requirement to specify nature and scope of conspiracy
5. › Adequacy of trial judge's directions
6. › Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 29D, 86(3)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Bribery of member of Parliament
3. › Meaning of 'understanding'
4. › Whether mutuality of understanding required between member and other party
5. › Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 73A(1)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Admissibility
4. › Evidence obtained through law enforcement operations
5. › Ridgeway discretion
6. › Balancing competing public interests
7. › Whether evidence should be excluded

Quick Take

Section 16(3) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth) should be interpreted according to its tenor and not read down; a breach of s.16(3) does not automatically constitute a fundamental irregularity requiring a mistrial but is assessed under the proviso. The word 'understanding' in s.73A(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) refers to the understanding of the Member of Parliament alone and does not require proof that the other party shared the corrupt understanding. The offering of a bribe under s.73A(2) is not an essential element of the offence under s.73A(1).