Baldwin v The Queen - [2010] HCATrans 298

[2010] HCATrans 298

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B50 of 2009

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

HAYNE J
KIEFEL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM CANBERRA BY VIDEO LINK TO BRISBANE

ON FRIDAY, 12 NOVEMBER 2010, AT 11.41 AM

MR A. SMITH: May it please the Court, I appear for the applicant. (instructed by Kerwin Solicitors)

MR A.W. MOYNIHAN, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MS L.P.T.C. BRISICK, for the respondent. (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld))

HAYNE J: Yes.

MR SMITH: Your Honours, I wish to address two issues out of the outline which your Honours have that the applicant regards as most significant here. They are the direction in relation to reasonable doubt and the direction in relation to any opinion that the trial judge may have held, both of which were addressed and discussed in the Court of Appeal. As a fundamental starting point it is my submission that the applicant says that there should be strict adherence to principle and that to water down any principle in relation to the issue of a direction about reasonable doubt and/or in relation to any opinions that may have been held by the trial judge, in a sense is contrary to the public interest and the administration of criminal justice.

Your Honour, under the taking of evidence in these types of cases your Honours would be aware that the jury is actually denied the benefit of the actual presence of the witness. There are subtleties in body language, eye movements and demeanour that cannot be replicated on video that are readily observed by the keen eye in a live presentation. This, in my submission, tends to handicap the accused in his defence. It is to be noted that as was said in the outline that by the operation of section 21A of the Evidence Act the complainant was regarded as a special witness.

In respect of reasonable doubt, your Honours, Darkan makes it quite clear at paragraph [69] that the stance of this Court is that the expression “beyond reasonable doubt” is the only expression – “it alone must be used, and nothing else”. This was described by the Court in that paragraph as an extreme stand, being justified because it was being –

“used by ordinary people and is understood well enough . . . that departures from the formula “have never prospered” –

and use of other expressions –

invite the jury “to analyse their own mental processes” –

Here in the application book at page 9, lines 10 to 38 his Honour begins by saying at trial:

I can’t give you a definition of that phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt”. I think it’s probably a well known phrase in the community. People know that it’s the…

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 Baldwin 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: [2010] HCATrans 298
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Baldwin v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Baldwin, against his conviction for murder. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain evidence during his trial and the subsequent appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales.

The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of the applicant's prior convictions and whether the Court of Criminal Appeal had been correct in upholding that decision. Specifically, the court had to consider the application of section 97 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW), which governs the admissibility of evidence of a person's prior misconduct or bad character when it is relevant to a fact in issue.

The High Court reasoned that the evidence of prior convictions was not admissible under section 97 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW) because it was not relevant to proving any fact in issue in the murder trial. The court found that the evidence was introduced solely to demonstrate the applicant's bad character, which is prohibited unless specific exceptions apply. The Court of Criminal Appeal had erred in its assessment of the evidence's relevance.

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

Orders