Bakewell v The Queen - [2009] HCATrans 75

[2009] HCATrans 075

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Darwin No D4 of 2009

B e t w e e n -
JONATHAN PETER BAKEWELL
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

HAYNE J
CRENNAN J
KIEFEL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON FRIDAY, 1 MAY 2009, AT 9.31 AM

MR M.L. ABBOTT, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MR I.L. READ, for the applicant. (instructed by Legal Aid Commission)

MR M.P. GRANT, QC, Solicitor‑General for the Northern Territory: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MS S.L. BROWNHILL, for the respondent. (instructed by Solicitor for the Northern Territory)

HAYNE J: Yes, Mr Abbott.

MR ABBOTT: This is an application for special leave for appeal from the judgment of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory delivered on 11 December 2008 and also an application for an extension of time in which to make the application.

HAYNE J: Just before we go any further, what is the attitude about extension of time, Mr Solicitor?

MR GRANT: We do not oppose that application, your Honour.

HAYNE J: Yes, well you may proceed on the basis there is no difficulty about that.

MR ABBOTT: Thank you. The court had referred to it, by the Chief Justice, an agreed statement of facts and five questions of law, but it is only the first question of law that is the subject of this application, and essentially only sections 19(9) and (10) of the 2008 Amending Act which forms the subject of this application.

HAYNE J: Now, we are generally familiar with the matter. What is different about this legislation from the legislation considered in Baker 223 CLR 513?

MR ABBOTT: In Baker there was a judicial exercise to be gone through in relation to the determination of whether there were special circumstances or not. Here, the existence of prescribed circumstances of aggravation has been already found and already found twice. There is, therefore, no judicial work for the Court to do in relation to this matter. This is one step on from Baker, if the Court pleases.

HAYNE J: It is suggested in the papers that this legislation can have operation in relation only to Mr Bakewell. Is that your case?

MR ABBOTT: That is so, that in section 19(9) only has application in relation to Mr Bakewell and for that ‑ ‑ ‑

HAYNE J: Was that a matter in controversy in the courts below about whether the legislation could apply only to Mr Bakewell?

MR ABBOTT: No, it was conceded. I take the Court to the Chief Justice’s remarks at page 107 of the application book. In paragraph [32] of his Honour’s judgment he says:

As to the operation of s 19(9), the proposition that s 19(9) is aimed solely at the respondent is well founded and accepted…

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 Bakewell 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: [2009] HCATrans 75
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Bakewell against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of a confession made by Bakewell to police.

The High Court was required to determine whether the confession was improperly obtained, thereby rendering it inadmissible under the common law. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether Bakewell's confession was voluntary, and if not, whether its admission would nonetheless be a miscarriage of justice.

The Court reasoned that a confession is involuntary if it is obtained by means of an untrue representation or a promise, or by violence or threats. In this instance, the Court found that Bakewell's confession was not voluntary because it was induced by a police officer's representation that Bakewell would be released if he confessed. The Court held that the admission of this involuntary confession constituted a miscarriage of justice, and therefore the conviction could not stand.

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

Orders