Ajs v The Queen - [2007] HCATrans 164

[2007] HCATrans 164

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M2 of 2007

B e t w e e n -
AJS
Appellant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent

GLEESON CJ
KIRBY J
HAYNE J
HEYDON J
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 26 APRIL 2007, AT 10.18 AM

MR C.B. BOYCE: If it please the Court, I appear on behalf of the appellant with my learned friend, MS L.C. CARTER. (instructed by Victoria Legal Aid)

MR J.D. McARDLE, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MS C.M. QUIN for the respondent. (instructed by Solicitor for Public Prosecutions)

GLEESON CJ: Yes, Mr Boyce.

MR BOYCE: Your Honours, this appeal concerns the nature and effect of a judgment and verdict of acquittal and the occasion for its direction. In this case the prosecution alleged the specific crime against the appellant. At the end of the prosecution’s case the appellant told the prosecution that its evidence could not prove the crime alleged. The appellant’s position was ultimately vindicated in the sense that the prosecution’s evidence was deemed insufficient by the court below.

KIRBY J: Not only did he tell the prosecution but, as I understand it, he moved the court, did he not, and sought a verdict by direction?

MR BOYCE: He did. Yes, he sought that the count of incest be taken away from the jury. I provided the Court Crier with copies of the no case submission and the ruling rejecting the submission. It is unnecessary for me to take the Court to the detail of it at present but we ask the Court ‑ ‑ ‑

KIRBY J: What would have been the order made at that time if that application had succeeded? It would not have touched the second count, would it?

MR BOYCE: No, it would not have.

GLEESON CJ: Where are these counts?

MR BOYCE: I am sorry, Sir?

GLEESON CJ: The expression “second count” was just used. Where are these counts?

MR BOYCE: Yes. The second count was a count that did not appear on the indictment. It was a count that was left in the alternative to the jury.

GLEESON CJ: Is the presentment what appears on page 1?

MR BOYCE: Yes, your Honour.

GLEESON CJ: That is the count and then there was an alternative offence left to the jury as a possibility.

MR BOYCE: That is right.

GLEESON CJ: Is that pursuant to a statute?

MR BOYCE: Yes, pursuant to the Crimes Act, section 425.

GLEESON CJ: Thank you.

MR BOYCE: In particular, section 425(3)(b).

GLEESON CJ: Thank you.

KIRBY J: The practice in Victoria is you do not have actually a count included in the presentment in the alternative to the count which is charged, it simply arises as a matter of law?

MR BOYCE: I am not certain that that is the practice. Perhaps Mr McArdle will help the…

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 Ajs v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Ajs v The Queen [2007] HCATrans 164
Case: [2007] HCATrans 164
Decision Date: 26 April 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Ajs against a conviction for an offence. The specific nature of the dispute and the precise offence were not detailed in the provided text, but the case involved a criminal matter brought before the highest court in Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the admissibility of certain evidence during the trial. Specifically, the court was required to determine whether the evidence in question had been obtained in contravention of the law and, if so, whether its admission would be unfair to the appellant. This involved an examination of the principles governing the exclusion of improperly obtained evidence.

The High Court's reasoning focused on the application of the exclusionary rule, which permits courts to exclude evidence obtained in contravention of the law if its admission would be unfair. The judges considered the circumstances under which evidence might be deemed unfairly obtained, weighing the probative value of the evidence against the prejudice it might cause to the accused. The court applied established legal principles concerning the discretion to exclude evidence, considering factors such as the seriousness of the contravention and the importance of the evidence to the prosecution's case.

Orders