Gordon Wood, whose conviction for murdering his girlfriend was overturned in 2012, is continuing his legal battle for millions of dollars in damages for "malicious prosecution".
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The 55-year-old is challenging a finding that NSW senior crown prosecutor Mark Tedeschi QC did not act maliciously in prosecuting the high-profile 2008 murder trial.
The former chauffeur to stockbroker Rene Rivkin lost his malicious prosecution lawsuit against the state of NSW in August 2018, although Justice Elizabeth Fullerton found he was prosecuted "without reasonable and probable cause".
The Supreme Court judge found Mr Tedeschi failed to comply with his obligations, that some of his explanations for his conduct were "highly questionable" and "in some respects disingenuous".
But she could not find he acted maliciously.
In the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal on Monday, Mr Wood's lawyer, Tom Molomby SC, sought to overturn the finding and have the case remitted back to Justice Fullerton for an assessment of damages.
He contended she erred in failing to find Mr Tedeschi acted with malice in initiating or maintaining the prosecution of his client for the murder of Caroline Byrne.
Her ruling meant Mr Wood wouldn't receive any compensation and he was ordered to pay the state's costs.
Mr Wood served more than three years of his 13-year sentence after being convicted of killing his 24-year-old girlfriend at The Gap - a notorious suicide spot in Sydney's eastern suburbs - one night in 1995.
His conviction was overturned in 2012 when the NSW Court of Appeal found suicide couldn't be ruled out as a cause of the model's death.
The three appeal judges strongly criticised Mr Tedeschi and physicist Associate Professor Rod Cross, who testified Ms Byrne must have been thrown off the cliff.
Mr Molomby argued Justice Fullerton ought to have found Mr Tedeschi had actual knowledge that he did not have reasonable cause to initiate or maintain the prosecution.
She also ought to have found he had actual knowledge that "his conduct of the prosecution was not consistent with his legal and ethical obligations as a crown prosecutor".
Mr Molomby told the appeal court Mr Tedeschi's opening address relating to motive and to claims about Ms Byrne's knowledge about Mr Rivkin involved a "most extraordinary trumpet blast of prejudice at the start of a criminal trial".
"It was made on a completely false basis," he said.
Mr Tedeschi's closing address involved "a persistent pattern of distorting the evidence and pushing it to its limits and beyond", which indicated there had indeed been malice, he said.
Peter Neil SC, for the state, denied the claim saying Justice Fullerton went to "great pains" in her judgment to set out fully "as needed and beyond" the competing submissions of the parties.
She ruled the myriad claims made about malice were not established but Mr Molomby had submitted she failed to consider the combined impact of all the claims.
"This is erroneous in law," Mr Neil said.
Mr Neil said for the appeal court to find the judge erred in not finding malice would involve it making "grave findings" in circumstances where the judges had not seen or heard Mr Tedeschi give evidence and be cross-examined over four days.
The hearing will continue on Tuesday before Justices Fabian Gleeson and Anthony Payne and Acting Justice Carolyn Simpson.
Australian Associated Press
