Case Brief Of R V Gudgeon

Case Name and Citation

R v Gudgeon [1995] QCA 506

Court and Judges

Queensland Court of Appeal: Fitzgerald P., McPherson J.A., Thomas J.

Parties

Appellant: Maxwell Gudgeon, Defendant during the trial

Counsel during appeal: C.E. Holmes

Respondent: The Queen (State)

Counsel during appeal: R.V. Hansom Q.C. with him D.C. Boyle

Material Facts

The appellant, a former New South Wales police officer, was sentenced to imprisonment in New South Wales in 1986 for his involvement in a serious drug offence, and he was in prison there from April 1986 until he was released on parole in January 1991. The present appeal relates to his conviction in the Trial Division on 31 August 1994 of an offence which was stated in the indictment in the following terms:

The appellant and various other members of the conspiracy were then arrested.

As the trial was conducted, the appellant’s conviction was inevitable. There was overwhelming prosecution evidence of his guilt, to which the appellant added admissions on oath in the course of giving evidence at his trial. However, he would not have done so but for the prosecution evidence; a perusal of the material portion of the trial record reveals that the appellant’s purpose in giving evidence was to demonstrate how his involvement was connected to the activities of law enforcement officials and their agents.

Question of Law / Issues

1. Whether the appeal should be allowed and a retrial ordered to determine whether the prosecution evidence, or sufficient to convict the appellant, should properly be

Detailed Reasons for the Decision

The majority in this case find themselves able to reject the appellant’s argument in this Court because of the nature of the offence of conspiracy and the strong evidence of activities by the appellant, in making and furthering arrangements with some of his co-conspirators, in which law enforcement officials had no direct involvement; for instance, his arrangements with Steele and Allingham.

The point at where law enforcement officials became involved and the nature and extent of their involvement were never fully and clearly explored despite the appellant’s attempts to do so. The majority in this Court say that the appellant shouldered the burden of establishing the basis for the exclusion of the prosecution evidence, and that he failed to do so.

The majority in this Court are of the opinion that, other considerations aside, there would be no point in allowing the appeal and ordering a new trial of the appellant because his guilt would be sufficiently established at the further trial by evidence of his admissions at the trial at which he was