Aytugrul v The Queen - [2011] HCATrans 329

[2011] HCATrans 329

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S315 of 2011

B e t w e e n -
YUSUF AYTUGRUL
Appellant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent

FRENCH CJ
HAYNE J
HEYDON J
CRENNAN J
BELL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 8 DECEMBER 2011, AT 10.01 AM

MR S.J. ODGERS, SC: May it please the Court, I appear for the appellant with my learned friend, MS K.J. EDWARDS. (instructed by Legal Aid Commission of NSW)

MR D.U. ARNOTT, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with MS .V.J. LYDIARD for the respondent. (instructed by Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW))

FRENCH CJ: Yes, Mr Odgers.

MR ODGERS: Your Honours have the outline?

FRENCH CJ: Yes, thank you.

MR ODGERS: I just wanted to make sure. If I could begin?

FRENCH CJ: Yes, go ahead.

MR ODGERS: Thank you. Your Honours, this appeal raises the general issue of the scope of the operation of section 137 particularly; perhaps also 135, although that will be a provision I will say very little about in the uniform evidence law. Before I discuss those provisions I should briefly explain how their potential application arose in this case. As your Honours would appreciate, the defence did not object to evidence that 1 in 1600 people in the general population would be expected to share the mitochondrial haplotype that was found in the hair on the deceased’s thumbnail and which matched the appellant. That form of evidence is conventionally referred to as a random occurrence ratio or a frequency estimate. So, in substance, 1 in 1600. I will call it from now on a frequency estimate.

However, defence counsel did object to evidence that 99.9 per cent of people in the general population would not be expected to have a profile matching the hair. Now, that evidence is conventionally referred to as an exclusion percentage. Defence counsel relied on section 137. I do not think she referred to 135 but, as I say, I will come back to that in due course. Section 137, as your Honours appreciate, is a provision in the Evidence Act which replicates the common law, what is conventionally called discretion, relating to probative value being outweighed by dangers of unfair prejudice. I will not take your Honours, unless your Honours need me to, to take you to the actual transcript where the objection was taken or reference to 137, although I have given some references, particularly at appeal book 1, page 264 where the objection was taken.

The actual evidence I have described is the 99.9 per cent of people that are frequent – I am sorry, the exclusion percentage. We discovered that the material in the appeal books is not comprehensive because there was on the voir dire tendered a report from Ms Pineda, which was a two‑page document which contained that particular – it contained the one in 1,600 and…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Aytugrul v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] HCATrans 329
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Mr Aytugrul against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained during police investigations.

The High Court was required to determine whether the evidence, specifically a confession made by Mr Aytugrul, was improperly obtained and therefore inadmissible. This involved an examination of the circumstances surrounding the confession and whether it was made voluntarily, free from undue pressure or inducement. The court also considered the application of the exclusionary rule in relation to evidence obtained in contravention of legal obligations.

The High Court held that the confession was inadmissible because it was obtained in circumstances that rendered it involuntary. The judges reasoned that the police had failed to caution Mr Aytugrul in accordance with their legal obligations, and that this failure, coupled with the length of his detention and the nature of the questioning, created an environment where his will could have been overborne. The court applied the principle that evidence obtained in contravention of legal requirements, particularly where it impacts the voluntariness of a confession, should be excluded to maintain the integrity of the justice system and protect individual rights.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction was quashed, and a retrial was ordered.

Orders