SEARCH
Justinian News

Lehrmann v The Commonwealth and Corruption Concealment Commission ... Here's Brucie's Originating Application seeking legai aid funding for the investigation into "frivolous, 'James Bond' like allegations that the Applicant used 'official' information (being French submarine secrets) gathered on the night of 26 March 2019 for financial, professional and personal purposes, among other things ... More >> 

Politics Media Law Society

My Role in Gough's Downfall ... Reporter-at-Large … Scoops that flushed out the deceit behind the Dismissal … Big anniversary chinwag in Canberra on November 11 … The combined forces of Kerr, Ellicott and cousin Garfield … Constitutional manipulation … Maurice Byers to the rescue ... Read more >> 

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

Know one, purl one ... Iron Lady of legal rectitude endorses Gageler ... The chief justice wants judges on the straight and narrow ... The cardboard cutout model of legislative supremacy ... The evils of judicial activism ... Procrustes on the dance floor with the Legislative-Judicial Foxtrot ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


AI at work ... The Epstein Files ... What a resurrected Christopher Hitchens says about Trump and Epstein ... Video >> 

 

Justinian's Bloggers

Berlusconi's dream world ... Revenge politics in Italy ... Independence of prosecutors under attack ... Constitutional assault ... The years of lead ... Investigations reopened into old murders ... High drama at Milan's Leoncavallo ... Rome correspondent Silvana Olivetti reports ... Read more >> 

"If we’re only picking people who have got completely lily-white records then we’ll be missing out on a lot of people that can contribute to public life.

NSW Premier Chris Minns, endorsing Mal Lanyon, his pick for Police Commissioner, whose contributions to public life include shouting drunken obsenities at a paramedic who came to his aid, and commandeering a police launch for private entertainment on New Year's eve ... Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

Schmoozing and betrayal ... Judge Water Softener rides into Integrityville mounted high on his horse ... Judicial review of corruption finding ... Intriguing submissions ... Unprecedented assistance to morals monitor ... The scale of the sub-rosa intrigue ... Plenty to think about ... Ginger Snatch reports ... Read more >> 

Justinian's archive

News Desk Special ... Angelic death notices from the bar ... Soapy slips on FOI changes ... Unusual interlocutory costs order for Chris Dale ... Judge ticks off Abbott in letters' page ... Knock About's festive salute to the coppers ... Read more >> 


 

 

« Ethical lapse in conduct rules | Main | Oh no. The Rolls Royce of legal systems »
Friday
Dec102010

Prosecutor breaches duty

Victorian prosecutor Carolyn Burnside birched by the Court of Appeal ... Failure to disclose evidence helpful to the defence ... Miscarriage of justice ... Defence team alerted to earlier case by DPP just before appeal hearing ... Tom Westbrook investigates

The Victorian Court of Appeal has delivered a stinging criticism of Melbourne barrister and prosecutor Carolyn Burnside and quashed a conviction that she secured in October 2009.

Burnside & HullsMs Burnside is also the wife of the immediate past Victorian attorney general Rob (F#@%&#) Hulls.

In AJ v The Queen, Justices Mark Weinberg, Bernard Bongiorno and Peter Buchanan said that Ms Burnside had committed a "significant and most regrettable breach of her duty as a prosecutor".

The Court found that her failure to disclose potentially exculpatory information to defence counsel "led to a miscarriage of justice".

AJ had been sentenced to 20 months imprisonment after being found guilty of committing an indecent act with or in the presence of a child under the age of 16.

The child was his daughter, XN. At the same trial he was acquitted of committing an act of sexual penetration with XN.

AJ was convicted on the evidence given by XN and it was information relating to XN's credibility that Ms Burnside failed to disclose.

Just four days before the appeal was to be heard defence counsel learned that XN had been the complainant in another sex case, also prosecuted by Ms Burnside.

In 2008 XN's neighbour, Mark Raymond Pollard, was convicted of the rape, attempted rape and sexual penetration of XN.

Central to that case were a large number of pornographic and sexually explicit text messages sent by XN to Pollard. XN denied sending all but one of them.

However, little store was placed in her denial and in the transcript of the Pollard trial Ms Burnside said:

"This is a case in which the Crown agrees that she sent, that is the complainant sent, pornography to [Pollard's] phone as well so that's not really an issue."

The appeal judges said that this left XN's credibility "at best, suspect". 

They continued:

"The prosecutor's failure to alert trial counsel in AJ's trial to the circumstances of Pollard's trial and, in particular, to the fact that she (the prosecutor) did not believe XN's denials of having sent a very large number of text messages to Pollard, constituted a significant and most regrettable breach of her duty as a prosecutor.

[snip]

Had the Pollard file been disclosed to the defence lawyers prior to the present applicant's trial it would have yielded information which could potentially have been of forensic use to the applicant's counsel. At the very least XN could have been cross-examined as to the sending of text messages to Pollard and as to her earlier denials of having done so. Such cross-examination may have produced an admission, or may have permitted further exploration of the complainant's credit. This could well have been to the benefit of the current applicant."

The appeal judges cited R v K, a decision in which King CJ said:

"There is a clear authority for the proposition that the prosecution must disclose to the defence any convictions of prosecution witnesses of which the prosecution is aware... This obligation must, in principle, extend, in my opinion, also to any information in the possession of the prosecution which reflects materially upon the credibility of prosecution witnesses. There must be limits, however, to the type of information which must be disclosed... The obligation arises, in my view, only if the information is sufficiently solid to cause reasonable persons conducting the prosecution to think that cross-examination based upon it might elicit answers materially affecting the credibility of the witness." 

They went on to cite Kirby J in Mallard v R:

"The prosecution may not suppress evidence in its possession, or available to it, material to the contested issues in the trial. Especially is this so where the material evidence may cast a significant light on the credibility or reliability of material prosecution witnesses or the acceptability and truthfulness of exculpatory evidence by or for the accused."

VicAppeals went onto say:

"The credibility of the complainant XN was central to the Crown case.  If the complainant's evidence as to the offences alleged against the applicant was doubted he was entitled to be acquitted. The Crown was in possession of information which was of such cogency that it satisfied its own prosecutor that the complainant had lied on oath in an earlier trial.  It did not disclose that information to the defence in this trial.  It ought to have done so" wrote the appeal judges."

It was a phone call from a solicitor at the Office of Public Prosecutions that alerted AJ's defence team to the Pollard case.

The ultimately successful appeal grounds, which were subsequently drawn, were the subject of an application to amend the applicant's grounds two days before the hearing.

The remainder of the appeal grounds were thrown out.

One of them was that the trial judge, Jane Campton, restricted cross-examination regarding a text message allegedly sent by XN.

The message, which XN denied sending to AJ's de facto wife, read:

"Can you tell Dad that I didn't mean for this to happen. As it never happened. Mum is making me do this.  Can you tell Dad I'm so sorry."

However, the CA found: 

"The trial judge did not exclude the contents of the text message from evidence by preventing its being adduced in cross-examination... At the point at which the witness denied sending it, defence counsel could have, had he wished to do so, proved the text message and its provenance. He could have then tendered it.  He did not do so."

The DPP is now considering whether AJ ought to be retried, given he has already served more than 18 months in prison.

Pollard is appealing his conviction.

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
Editor Permission Required
You must have editing permission for this entry in order to post comments.