Tripodi v The Queen [1961] HCA 22

Tripodi v The Queen [1961] HCA 22

Special leave to appeal was refused because the challenged evidence of acts and statements concerning alteration and repainting of the cars was, for the most part, admissible as done in furtherance of a common criminal purpose; Mrs Tayler's evidence was capable of corroborating her accomplice husband in a material...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal From Refusal of Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Special leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['larceny of Motor Cars' 'accomplice Evidence' 'corroboration' 'evidence of Acts and Statements in Furtherance of a Common Criminal Purpose' 'false Statements by Accused' 'jury Directions' 'special Leave to Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'appellate Procedure'] ['larceny of Motor Cars' 'accomplice Evidence' 'corroboration' 'evidence of Acts and Statements in Furtherance of a Common Criminal Purpose' 'false Statements by Accused' 'jury Directions' 'special Leave to Appeal']

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal From Refusal of Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence of what was done and said about the cars in the absence or out of the hearing of the prisoner was admissible against him on the basis of preconcert or common criminal purpose.' "Whether the wife of an accomplice was capable of providing corroboration of the accomplice's evidence." 'Whether false answers given by the prisoner to police could amount to corroboration of accomplice evidence.' "Whether the trial judge's warning about acting on uncorroborated accomplice evidence was insufficient so as to justify special leave to appeal."]

Ratio Decidendi

Special leave to appeal was refused because the challenged evidence of acts and statements concerning alteration and repainting of the cars was, for the most part, admissible as done in furtherance of a common criminal purpose; Mrs Tayler's evidence was capable of corroborating her accomplice husband in a material particular implicating the prisoner; some false denials to police could be treated as corroboration where falsity was supported by evidence outside Tayler's testimony; and although the accomplice warning was comparatively weak, sufficient corroboration and the strength of the case meant this was not a ground for special leave.

Court Disposition

Special leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Special leave to appeal refused.']