BRENNAN, DEANE, DAWSON, TOOHEY AND McHUGH JJ. The applicant was convicted in the Supreme Court of South Australia of having demanded money with threats. He was tried before a judge alone, having elected to be tried without a jury pursuant to s.7 of the Juries Act 1927 (S.A.). The offence of demanding money with menaces or threats was created by sub-s.(1) of s.3 of the Kidnapping Act 1960 (S.A.). Section 3 provides as follows:

"3.(1) Any person who without reasonable and

probable cause directly or indirectly and whether by letter, writing, word of mouth or any other medium whatsoever demands any property, chattel, money, valuable security or other valuable thing of any person with menaces or threats in relation to the life, health, safety, security or well-being of the person from whom the demand is made or of any other person or to the safety or security of the property real or personal of either such person shall be guilty of felony and liable to be imprisoned for life. (2) Any person who without reasonable and

probable cause directly or indirectly and whether by letter, writing, word of mouth or any other medium whatsoever threatens the life, health, safety, security or well-being of any other person or of any relative or friend of that person or of any member of that person's family or the safety or security of the property real or personal of any such person, relative, friend or member of family shall be guilty of felony and liable to be imprisoned for life."

2. The demand alleged to have been made by the applicant was contained in a letter which was left in a public telephone box. It appears in the judgment of the Chief Justice in the Full Court as follows:
"This is to warn you that the Pope will be attacked
unless the State Government does the following: 1. Order all prisoners keep in police cells to be take to Adelaide Gaol, A.R.C., this is to be done by 12 p.m. on 28.11.86. This is to be shown on T.V. news. 2. The State Government (Blevins) is to grant a pay rise to all prisoners of $20, this is to be done by 29.11.86 again T.V. news. 3. Remove a number of prison officers from ARC. A list will be given to you. As you will try and trace phone calls we will make contact with you by other means. Also if you don't carry out no.1 we will conduct a fire bombing within 48 hours to show you we will do what we say. As you will try to stop us we have taken steps to stop you so be warned of surprises if you try it. The code for you us…

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 Austin v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Austin v The Queen [1989] HCA 26
Case: [1989] HCA 26
Decision Date: 11 May 1989

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Austin v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Austin, against his conviction for murder. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain evidence and the directions given to the jury by the trial judge.

The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence obtained in circumstances that may have infringed the applicant's rights, and whether the judge's directions to the jury regarding the issue of self-defence were adequate and properly explained the onus of proof.

The Court analysed the principles governing the admissibility of evidence obtained in contravention of an accused's rights, particularly in light of the common law and statutory provisions. It considered the balance between the probative value of the evidence and the potential prejudice to the accused. Furthermore, the Court examined the requirements for a valid direction on self-defence, including the need to clearly articulate that the prosecution bears the onus of disproving self-defence once raised by the evidence. The judges applied established principles of criminal law and evidence, focusing on fairness and the proper administration of justice.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

Orders