Adam v The Queen - [2001] HCATrans 77

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S139 of 2000

B e t w e e n -
GILBERT ADAM
Appellant
and
THE QUEEN

Respondent

GLEESON CJ
GAUDRON J
KIRBY J
HAYNE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON FRIDAY, 30 MARCH 2001, AT 10.16 AM

(Continued from 23/11/00)

GLEESON CJ: Mr Odgers and Mr Blackmore, I understand that the parties have been told that Justice McHugh is not able to be present today and that the parties are agreeable to our continuing with the argument and to his participating in the decision by reading the transcript of today’s proceedings.

MR ODGERS: Yes, that is correct, your Honour.

GLEESON CJ: Thank you. Yes, Mr Odgers.

MR ODGERS: Thank you, your Honour. Your Honours, an amended chronology has been filed by the appellant, which is entitled “Appellant’s Amended Chronology”. However, subsequently to that the respondent, I understand, has filed another document which is entitled “Amended Chronology” and we are content to rely on that latter document.

KIRBY J: How do we know one from the other?

MR ODGERS: Well, the Crown’s one is not called “Appellant’s Amended Chronology”.

KIRBY J: But the one I have is “Further Amended Chronology”.

MR ODGERS: I am sorry, I apologise, your Honour, I have got a different document. Yes it is called “Further Amended Chronology”.

KIRBY J: So that is the one we are to use.

MR ODGERS: Yes, your Honour.

GLEESON CJ: Well, I am told I do not have it.

KIRBY J: Why have you left the Chief Justice off the list?

MR ODGERS: You will have to ask the Crown that, your Honour.

GLEESON CJ: Has it an identifying mark on it? Has it a reference to the solicitor, for example?

MR BLACKMORE: I understand it was handed up this morning before Court, your Honour.

GAUDRON J: Mine says “10”.

GLEESON CJ: I am going to show you something and ask you whether that is the one that we should have?

MR BLACKMORE: Yes.

GLEESON CJ: Thank you.

MR ODGERS: Your Honours will see from that document that it provides much of the information which some members of the Court requested on the last time that this matter was argued and it includes references and where appropriate I will draw your Honours’ attention to that material.

KIRBY J: Would you remind us where we had got ‑ ‑ ‑

MR ODGERS: Yes, your Honour, I will and, indeed, I would ask your Honours’ indulgence to allow me to spend a short time just going over one or two matters that we had dealt with on the last occasion. Before I do that, perhaps, there was particular matter which your Honour Justice Kirby was concerned about and perhaps I can deal with that quickly now. That was the question of evidence of David Carty’s blood on Thaier Sako. The Crown has obtained transcript relating to all of that but perhaps if…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Adam v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Adam v The Queen [2001] HCATrans 77
Case: [2001] HCATrans 77
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Adam v The Queen* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia following a conviction for murder. The appellant, Adam, had been found guilty of murder by a jury in the Supreme Court of New South Wales and subsequently sentenced to imprisonment for life. The appeal to the High Court raised questions regarding the fairness of the trial and the admissibility of certain evidence.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of the appellant's prior convictions and whether the summing up to the jury was adequate, particularly in relation to the issue of self-defence. The appellant argued that the admission of his criminal history prejudiced the jury against him, thereby rendering the trial unfair. Furthermore, he contended that the jury directions on self-defence were insufficient to properly guide them in their deliberations.

The High Court considered the principles governing the admissibility of evidence of prior convictions, noting that such evidence is generally inadmissible if its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. The Court also examined the requirements for a sufficient summing up, emphasizing the need for clear and accurate directions on all relevant issues of fact and law. After reviewing the evidence and the trial judge's directions, the High Court concluded that the admission of the prior convictions was unduly prejudicial and that the summing up on self-defence was inadequate.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction for murder, and ordered a new trial.

Orders