Antoun & Anor v The Queen - [2005] HCATrans 823

[2005] HCATrans 823

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S299 of 2005

B e t w e e n -
JOSEPH ANTOUN
Appellant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S300 of 2005

B e t w e e n -
ANTOINE ANTOUN
Appellant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent

GLEESON CJ
KIRBY J
HAYNE J
CALLINAN J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 6 OCTOBER 2005, AT 10.07 AM

__________________

MR P. BYRNE, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR S.W. WILKINSON, for the appellant, Antoine Antoun. (instructed by Ryan and Bosscher)

MR C. STEIRN, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR B.L. CLARK, on behalf of Mr Joseph Antoun. (instructed by Ryan and Bosscher)

MR G.E. SMITH, SC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MS S.C. DOWLING, for the respondent. (instructed by Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (New South Wales))

GLEESON CJ: Yes, Mr Byrne.

MR BYRNE: Your Honours, this appeal concerns the conduct of a criminal trial by a judge sitting without a jury and raises questions regarding the conduct of the judge and, in particular, whether that conduct demonstrated or gave rise to a suspicion that he may have prejudged or might prejudge the matters that he was called upon to decide. Your Honours, the particular occasions during the trial proceedings when the issue in question arose were two in number effectively. The first of those occasions concerned the consequence of an indication by senior counsel then appearing for one of the appellants that there would be an application for a directed verdict.

GLEESON CJ: May I just get something straight in my own mind. What are the elements of the offence of demanding money with menaces?

MR BYRNE: The elements of an offence of demanding money with menaces that they are initially a demand made of a person in circumstances which effectively amount to stealing, that is, that the person making the demand intends to permanently deprive the person of whom the demand is made of the, in this case, the money. Those are essentially the elements of the offence.

GLEESON CJ: Is it an element of the offence that the money that is demanded is not in fact owed to the person who utters the menaces?

MR BYRNE: To the extent that if that is the factual situation, then one of the elements is not capable of being established. That is, the intention to permanently deprive the person of whom the demand is made of the money in circumstances amounting to stealing. If the person making the demand has in fact a claim of right to the money, then it does not constitute the offence of demanding money with menaces because the circumstances do not amount to stealing.

GLEESON CJ: That is what I am interested…

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 Antoun & Anor v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Antoun & Anor v The Queen [2005] HCATrans 823
Case: [2005] HCATrans 823
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicants, Antoun and Anor, against their convictions for offences under the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth). The dispute concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained through telephone interception warrants, specifically whether the warrants were lawfully issued and whether the intercepted material was admissible in the subsequent criminal proceedings.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the warrants authorising the interception of communications were validly issued under the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth), and consequently, whether the evidence obtained from those interceptions was admissible in the trial of the applicants. This involved an examination of the requirements for the issuance of such warrants, including the necessity for the issuing officer to be satisfied of certain conditions precedent.

The High Court reasoned that the validity of the warrants depended on whether the issuing officer had properly applied their mind to the statutory requirements for their issuance. The Court held that the issuing officer must be satisfied that the conditions stipulated in the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth) were met before authorising an interception. If these conditions were not met, the warrants would be invalid, and the evidence obtained pursuant to them would be inadmissible. The Court analysed the evidence before the issuing officer and the process undertaken, applying principles of statutory interpretation to determine the scope of the issuing officer's discretion and the mandatory nature of the preconditions.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions, and ordered that the applicants be retried.

Orders