In this matter Greg Walsh represented the respondent in respect of the submissions of two questions of law to the Court of Criminal Appeal under s5A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW). The questions arose out of the trial of GK on charges of sexual assault involving GK’s step-daughter. At the trial in September 1999, the Crown tried to prove that GK was the father of the complainant’s baby by tendering evidence of DNA testing. Objection was taken to the evidence under s137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).
Ford DCJ limited admissibility to evidence that the testing did not exclude the possibility of paternity. He refused to allow evidence of likelihood of the percentage of probability of paternity. GK was represented for trial in February 2000 before Moore DCJ and a jury. The Crown again sought to lead evidence of further DNA testing which has been carried out since the first trial. Moore DCJ conducted a voir dire in which experts called by the Crown give evidence about the interpretation of DNA testing.
Moore DCJ held that legal principles required for him “not to disturb exercises of discretion from that which was exercised by His Honour Judge Ford”. He ruled that “there should not be arithmetical figures put before the jury.” The second trial aborted and the third was conducted on the basis of the rulings in the second. The jury finding the Respondent not guilty.
The Court of Criminal Appeal determined the questions as follows:
1. Where a trial judge makes a discretionary ruling on the admissibility of certain evidence, is a trial judge at a subsequent trial following a favour by the first jury to agree on its verdict bound to follow that ruling with respect to the inadmissibility of that same evidence?
No.
2. Was his Honour Judge Moore in error in refusing to admit evidence of the probability, in numerical terms derived from DNA testing that GK was the father of the complainant’s child, on the basis that there was a real risk of unpaired prejudice to the accused?
Yes as paternity index statistics, No as to relative chance of paternity statistics.
Greg Walsh represented the appellant in the Court of Criminal Appeal arising from conviction and sentence in respect of historical sexual assault matters.
Greg Walsh represented the defendant at Campbelltown Local Court in respect of a s48E Application and a subsequent committal in relation to counts of sexual intercourse before Mr4 D Pierce L.C.M. The defendant was discharged.
In this matter, Greg Walsh acted for the plaintiffs in an action against the State of New South Wales alleging negligence and breach of duty of care. The case raised issues involving welfare of children, claims of nervous distress, psychiatric injury, personal and financial loss as a result of the allegations, responsibilitie4s of the Director-General and departmental officers, allegations of negligence against the Director-General and departmental officers investigating, reporting and acting in allegations – with a duty owed to parents and grandparents by the Director-General and Departmental officers in investigating, reporting and acting on allegations of child abuse.
Greg Walsh acted for the plaintiffs in this action and successfully sought amendments to the pleadings in relation to an act of malicious prosecution and abuse of process generally.
In this matter Greg Walsh represented the appellant in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal which considered the effect of the delay of complaint and the adequacy of direction of the jury by the trial judge.
The charge against the appellant was one of sexual assault and was alleged to have occurred approximately some 25 years after the event. The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld the appeal and quashed the conviction.
Represented the successful appellant in an appeal to the Family Court of Australia arising from a property hearing before Rose J.
Represented a successful plaintiff in a civil action arising from the death of their elderly mother in a motor vehicle accident.
Greg Walsh represented the plaintiff in respect of a decision not to award costs to the plaintiff consequent upon his being discharged in respect of charges of sexual assault involving his daughter. The Magistrate had held that it was not an appropriate matter in which to award costs. Hidden J held that the Magistrate had fallen into error and that it was a matter in which costs ought to have been awarded. Hidden J reviewed the circumstances in which it was appropriate to award costs pursuant to the provisions of the Justices Act 1902 as amended.
Greg Walsh appeared as Counsel in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal on behalf of the applicant in respect of an appeal pursuant to s5F of the Criminal Appeal Act arising from the refusal of Maguire DCJ to stay an indictment in respect of historical sexual assault charges. The Court upheld the application and granted a permanent stay.
When the proceedings taken by the Legal Services Commissioner came before the Tribunal for hearing on 26 October 1998, Mr Musgrave did not appear. The Tribunal noted that the practitioner had ‘disappeared’ from his place of residence at Coffs Harbour two days before 26 October 1998 and that the Tribunal had found in other proceedings (taken by the Law Society) against the legal practitioner that in the period of his disappearance from 24 October 1998 to 5 November 1998, he was suffering from a dissociative fugue and was not responsible for his actions in impersonating another Solicitor.
The Tribunal however in making its findings of professional misconduct in respect of complaints bought to the Tribunal by the Legal Services Commissioner, did not accept the solicitor’s conduct in respect of which those findings were made was affected by or explained by mental illness.
The Tribunal said at (24) it was “satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, the Solicitor did suffer a dissociative fugue in October, 1998, from the time of his disappearance until sometime about the time of his return to Coffs Harbour on 5 November 1998. This was an episode of illness of short duration.”
The Tribunal was satisfied that on the balance of probabilities that whilst these experiences may in part help to understand the Solicitor’s behaviour, they did not excuse his misconduct, although that misconduct no doubt heightens his distress and anxiety. The Tribunal found that prior to the onset of the dissociative fugue; the solicitor did not have a condition which relieved him of responsibility for his acts.
Greg Walsh represented 68 plaintiffs in a successful action against the State of New South Wales arising from their unlawful detention and imprisonment arising from raids conducted by Officers of the Department of Community Services and New South Wales Police. The individual plaintiffs were successful in obtaining verdicts against the defendants.