Goussis v The Queen

[2011] VSCA 117

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Trial
3. › Judge's charge to jury
4. › Competing inferences from circumstantial evidence
5. › Whether trial judge may identify inference not advanced by Crown or defence
6. › Whether unfairness to accused
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Corroboration
4. › Evidence of accomplice
5. › Whether evidence more consistent with guilt than innocence
6. › Whether visits to crime scene capable of corroborating accomplice evidence
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Listening device recordings
4. › Unclear recording
5. › Whether words capable of being deciphered a matter for jury
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Fresh evidence
4. › Whether evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence
5. › Whether significant possibility jury would have acquitted

Quick Take

A trial judge may identify competing inferences from the evidence in the charge to the jury, even where those inferences were not advanced by either party, provided the inference is inherent in the evidence and does not introduce a new basis for conviction. The discount for assistance to authorities may justify very considerable disparity in sentences between co-offenders without breaching the parity principle.