Lawyer X wants jury in civil trial against Victoria

Lawyers for barrister-turned-police informer Nicola Gobbo have opposed Victoria’s application for a judge-alone trial.

Nicola Gobbo is suing Victoria for compensation for injury, loss and damage she claims she suffered as a result of its alleged negligence in its use of her as a police informer.

Lawyers for barrister-turned-police informer Nicola Gobbo have argued that her civil trial against the state should be heard by a jury, rather than a judge alone, because citizens are “best placed” to determine the “the standards and duties that exist” between “state and citizen”.

But lawyers for the state of Victoria told the Supreme Court on Wednesday the state had applied for a judge-alone trial because any jury selected would be “tainted from the outset”.

Ms Gobbo, also known as Lawyer X, is suing the state for compensation for injury, loss and damage she claims she suffered as a result of its alleged negligence in its use of her as a police informer.

Barrister for the state, Bernard Quinn KC, told the court the “factual and legal complexity” of the matter and the publicity surrounding the Lawyer X scandal meant the trial should be judge-alone. “You couldn’t get a more publicised set of events,” he said. “Any jury coming is going to be tainted from the outset.”

Supreme Court judge Andrew Keogh ordered Ms Gobbo’s barrister, Tim Tobin SC, make a recusal application that no Victorian Supreme Court judge hear the case.

It followed Mr Tobin’s argument that a trial by jury would be “far better” than judge-alone given Ms Gobbo’s proximity to the court, including the fact that her sister is, and her uncle was, a Supreme Court judge.

Judge Keogh said Mr Tobin couldn’t “dance around” the issue and that it wouldn’t disappear even if the matter proceeded with a jury.

“You’ve got to make an application, and it is a recusal application, it’s a recusal application of judges of this court,” he said.

As part of his argument for a jury trial, Mr Tobin also submitted that publicity in relation to the matter would not prejudice either party. He said media coverage didn’t include “much detail” on issues which would be before the court including “what was being said at a particular time by officers to the plaintiff and what has happened to the plaintiff in the last five years”.

Mr Tobin said Ms Gobbo was “at the hands of the state”, and pointed to the government introducing its State Civil Liability (Police Informants) Bill into parliament, which aims to limit the state’s liability to her.

“What is being sought by the plaintiff is a determination of the standards and duties that exist between, in effect, state and citizen, and they are the people who are so best placed to make that determination,” Mr Tobin said.

In response, Mr Quinn for the state said the case was “private, voluntary litigation for money,” and not a public law case.

The State Civil Liability (Police Informants) Bill, as passed by the Legislative Council earlier this month, limits liability to $1m for civil claims related to information sharing or other assistance provided to Victoria Police by Ms Gobbo or slain lawyer Joseph Acquaro. The government had initially sought to extinguish rights to any such claims.

Judge Keogh made no ruling on the state’s application for a judge-alone trial and said he would deal with the recusal matter on Thursday.

The trial is scheduled to begin on September 30.