Tripodi v The Queen [1961] HCA 22

High Court of Australia Dixon C.J. Fullagar and Windeyer JJ. Tripodi v The Queen [1961] HCA 22

ORDER Special leave to appeal refused.

Cur. adv. vult.

The Court delivered the following written judgment:—

May 5 Dixon C.J., Fullagar and Windeyer JJ.

This application for special leave to appeal is made by a prisoner convicted before a Court of General Sessions at Melbourne upon two counts of larceny of motor cars. He applied to the Supreme Court of Victoria (Lowe, Gavan Duffy and Dean JJ.) for leave to appeal against his conviction but his application was refused and it is from the order refusing leave that the present application is made [2] .

1. (1961) V.R. 186.

The first count upon which the prisoner was convicted was for the larceny on 11th May 1959 at North Melbourne of a Holden sedan car: the second upon which he was convicted was for the larceny on 28th May 1959 at Moonee Ponds of another Holden sedan car. To explain the grounds upon which the application to this Court for special leave to appeal is supported a very brief account is necessary of the facts presumably accepted by the jury as the basis of the convictions. The car the subject of the first count was a 1955 model Holden coloured grey. The owner parked it in a street in North Melbourne and while he was absent it was stolen. It was recovered by the police nine weeks or so later. It had been painted a two tone green, the engine was missing and the number plates and the registration label were gone, together with certain minor parts. Nevertheless the owner was able to identify the car without much chance of error. The car the subject of the second count, a 1953 model Holden, was left by its owner in a street in Moonee Ponds and when he returned it had been taken by a thief or thieves. This car also was recovered by the police and produced to its owner in the same way and on the same date as was the other car. The owner was able to identify it, but its engine had been changed and it had a different registration disc and number plates. The case for the prosecution was that the first car had been stolen by certain men acting in concert, of whom the prisoner was one, that they had enlisted the aid of one Tayler to sell it and that they had been prepared to furnish him for the purpose with registration papers, which, however, related to a 1953 model. Tayler pointed out that the car was a 1955 model which he could not sell on the papers of a 1953 model. Thereupon with his help the prisoner and others proceeded to look for a 1953 model Holden which would so to speak fit the papers. They found the car at Moonee Ponds and stole that; they then changed the engine and the registration sticker and number plates.