R v Rogerson [1992] HCA 25

High Court of Australia Mason C.J. Brennan, Deane, Toohey and McHugh JJ. R v Rogerson [1992] HCA 25

ORDER Reg. v Rogerson Application for special leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed. Set aside the order of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. Remit the matter to the Court of Criminal Appeal to hear and determine the appeal to that Court in accordance with the judgment of this Court. Reg. v Nowytarger Application for special leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed. Reg. v Paltos Application for special leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed. Set aside the order of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. Remit the matter to the Court of Criminal Appeal to hear and determine the appeal to that Court in accordance with the judgment of this Court.

Cur. adv vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

1992, June 17 Mason C.J.

McHugh J. has set out the facts and the circumstances in which this application for special leave to appeal comes before the Court. The Crown brings the application in order to challenge the statement of principle formulated and applied by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal which resulted in that Court quashing the convictions of the three respondents of the offence of conspiring to pervert the course of justice between 1 May 1985 and 31 July 1986. The charge of conspiracy arose out of an alleged agreement to fabricate evidence which had as its object the frustration or diversion of a police investigation into the possible commission of a crime. The Court of Criminal Appeal (Lee C.J. at C.L., with whose judgment Grove and Loveday JJ. agreed) held that the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice by action of the kind allegedly agreed upon cannot be established in the absence of proof by the Crown of "the general nature of the charge, which the accused had in his contemplation when he engaged in the conduct which resulted in his being charged" [1] . According to the Court of Criminal Appeal, except in the case where the accused asserts a bogus crime, the Crown must lead evidence that an identifiable crime has been committed or evidence that the investigating officers have evidence that raises a suspicion or belief that such a crime has been committed.