Cases

Rendell v The Queen (1996-1997)

Represented Mr Rendell in respect of an application to set aside a wrongful conviction which was heard in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. The appeal was granted and a verdict of acquittal was entered.

Hartnett & Ors v State of NSW (1995-2000)

In this matter Greg Walsh represented 68 plaintiffs in civil proceedings instituted in the Supreme Court of New South Wales arising from their wrongful detention and imprisonment. The case was a complex one involving a large number of plaintiffs.

Represented children in the case that became known as the ‘Children of God” case. Care proceedings were conducted over 42 hearing days and represented the children in respect of those care proceedings. The proceedings were ultimately terminated as a result of the mediation conducted by Sir Laurence Street.

Director General of Department of Community Services v W & Ors (1994-1995)

In this matter Greg Walsh represented a father, mother and grandmother in respect of care proceedings that was heard over a period of 107 days. The hearing dealt with complex issues arising from allegations based upon the complaint of one of W’s children who suffered from Repressed Memory Syndrome.

The Queen v Saraswati (1992) (Unreported, NSWDC, per NASH DCJ)

In this matter Greg Walsh represented the Applicant in respect of an application for costs arising from the arrest of a jury’s verdict arising from his conviction on counts of sexual assault. The application was successful and the Crown was ordered to pay the Applicant’s costs.

In this matter Greg Walsh represented the Applicant, Saraswati in an application to arrest judgment arising from the conviction of Saraswati in relation to a further trial in which the same issues arised that had been determined by the High Court of Australia. An application to arrest a jury’s verdict is a most unusual application. The application was successful and the jury’s verdict was set aside.

SARASWATI V THE QUEEN (1991) HCA 21; (1991) 172 CLR 1 (5TH JUNE 1991)

In this matter Greg Walsh represented the successful appellant in his appeal to the High Court of Australia arising from the decision of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. By majority, the High Court held that it was impermissible for the Crown to prefer a charge which otherwise was statute barred in circumstances so as to avoid the time limitation provided by that provision. The order of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales was set aside and in lieu thereof the Court ordered that the appeal to that Court be allowed, that the convictions be quashed and that please of acquittal be entered on each charge.

SARASWATI V THE QUEEN (1989) 18 NSWLR 143

In this matter Greg Walsh represented the appellant in an application for leave to appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. The appeal raised important issues in respect of statutory construction of the Crimes Act, 1900, and in particular in circumstances where a provision of a statute (s78) provided a defence (by virtue of a time limit) and the prosecution charged the accused pursuant to another offence in order to avoid the operation of the time limit.

The Queen v A (Juvenile) (1989)

Represented on a pro bono basis, a young juvenile was charged with manslaughter arising from the alleged birth of her baby. The juvenile was aged only 14 years and was unaware of her pregnancy and gave birth to the child on the toilet. Greg Walsh appeared as Counsel for the child at an inquest before Mr Hande, Coroner, and made submissions to the Director of Public Prosecutions who no-billed the prosecution.

Wilson v McDougal & Anor (1987) NSWLR 241

In this matter, Greg Walsh represented the successful defendant arising from an appeal from a decision of a Magistrate to award costs to the defendants arising from care proceedings pursuant to the Child Welfare Act 1939. Newman J held that where proceeding in their conduct, with the Child Welfare Act 1939, are both misconceived and mischievous of latter element entitles the Court to use its inherent jurisdiction to award costs and an appropriate remedy to counteract the mischief.