Aytugrul v The Queen - [2011] HCATrans 238

[2011] HCATrans 238

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S149 of 2011

B e t w e e n -
YUSUF AYTUGRUL
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

FRENCH CJ
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 2 SEPTEMBER 2011, AT 11.45 AM

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

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

FRENCH CJ: Yes, Mr Odgers.

MR ODGERS: Your Honours, firstly we require an extension of time.

FRENCH CJ: Is that opposed, Mr Arnott? No. The extension is granted.

MR ODGERS: Thank you, your Honour. This application has general importance for the following reasons. Firstly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal overturns a practice in New South Wales and other Australian criminal courts in respect of the presentation of statistical evidence in relation to DNA profiles. Secondly, the judgment is a split decision where the dissenting member of the court, a senior and experienced judge, has identified a substantial body of empirically based literature that supports that practice.

FRENCH CJ: Your focus is on the use of the exclusionary characterisation of the evidence?

MR ODGERS: Correct, yes, what I will call the discretion to exclude evidence because the way in which it is presented, if I could put it in these terms ‑ ‑ ‑

FRENCH CJ: I am talking about the exclusionary characterisation of the evidence, that is, that 99.9 per cent of people, et cetera, would not have ‑ ‑ ‑

MR ODGERS: Yes, of course, I am sorry. Yes, your Honour, the distinction between expressing it in terms of frequency is one in 1600, more in terms of percentages, 99.9 per cent of the population would not be expected to share that profile. Yes, it is that distinction between the way of presenting the evidence. Of course, there was no objection to it being presented in terms of frequencies. The objection that was taken was to it being presented in terms of percentages.

We say that this case raises starkly the important question, does a trial judge in a criminal trial have a power to exclude evidence simply on the basis that the way in which it is presented is likely to have greater persuasive impact on the jury than if it is presented in another way. Putting that proposition in a different way, may a trial judge exclude evidence simply on the basis that the way in which it is presented is likely to result in a jury giving the evidence more weight than it deserves. Of course, if the judge has that power, should it be exercised to exclude the evidence on that basis.

Earlier judgments of the Court of…

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 238
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria in the matter of *Aytugrul v The Queen*. The appellant, Mr. Aytugrul, had been convicted of a number of offences, including aggravated burglary and assault, and was appealing his conviction and sentence.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting certain evidence, specifically a confession made by the appellant to police. The appellant argued that the confession was involuntary and had been obtained in circumstances that rendered it inadmissible under Australian law, thereby prejudicing his right to a fair trial.

The High Court considered the principles governing the admissibility of confessions, particularly the requirement that they be voluntary. The Court examined the evidence relating to the circumstances in which the confession was made, including the length of questioning, the appellant's state of mind, and any inducements or threats made by the police. The Court applied the established legal tests for voluntariness and considered whether the admission of the confession had, in the circumstances, resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the confession was voluntary and its admission at trial had not occasioned a miscarriage of justice. The conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Orders