Beck v The Queen - [1989] HCATrans 296

•
•
~

•

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Office of the Registry

Brisbane No B36 of 1989

B e t w e e n -

VALMAE FAY BECK
Applicant

and
THE QUEEN
Respondent

Application for special
leave to appeal
MASON CJ
BRENNAN J
DAWSON J

Beck
GAUDRON J
McHUGH J
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 5 DECEMBER 1989, AT 2.18 PM
Copyright in the High Court of Australia

C2T 42/1/DR 1 5/12/89

MR K. COPLEY, QC: May it please the Court, I appear for the
applicant with my learned friend, MR W. McMILLAN.
(instructed by the Public Defender)

MR D.G. STURGESS, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear with
my learned friend, MR T.A. FULLER, for the
respondent. (instructed by the Director of
Prosecutions (Qld))

MASON CJ: Mr Copley.

MR COPLEY: I hand up an outline of the applicant's submissions.
MASON CJ: Thank you. Yes.

MR COPLEY: If the Court pleases, the application is out of
time by a little over two weeks and we ask for an
extension of time within which to bring this

application. We understand that the Crown does not
oppose the application because of its being out of time. It was not because of the applicant's personal fault; the circumstances have been referred
to in the affidavit of Mr Harland; and practically
no additional costs have been incurred by any
party and we would point out, particularly, that the
period is rather short. It is a matter where the
Court does have power and we would ask the Court's indulgence in the circumstances.

MASON CJ: Well, you can proceed to the grounds for special
leave, Mr Copley.

MR COPLEY: If the Court pleases, the applicant and her
husband - not a de facto husband as appears in the
affidavit - abducted one Sian Kingi from Noosa on
27 November 1987 at about 4.00 pm.

MASON CJ: You can take it we are familiar with the facts.
We have read the judgments of the Court of Criminal
Appeal.

MR COPLEY:

The particular background to the circumstances
of the connnission of the offences to which the
applicant has pleaded guil-ty to ·that of abduction or
deprivation of liberty and rape are contained in
the record of interview which was taken by the
police - it commences at page 291 of the record -
and I take the Court to page 293 and the passages
connnencing from question 26 through to 39 or 40.

(Continued on page 3)

C2T42/2/DR 2 5/12/89
Beck
MR COPLEY (continuing): It might be more convenient at the
moment if I referred the Court to those passages and
invited the Court to read those rather than - - -

MASON CJ: Yes, I agree.

BRENNAN J: Which page is it, Mr Copley?
MR COPLEY: Pages 293 and 294, Your Honour.

MASON CJ: Beginning with question 26?

MR COPLEY: Yes, Your Honour.
MASON CJ: Yes.
MR COPLEY: Further, Your Honour, at page 307 in question 205
and the answer, in question…

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 Beck v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Beck v The Queen [1989] HCATrans 296
Case: [1989] HCATrans 296
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on an application for special leave to appeal. The applicant, Ms Beck, sought an extension of time to bring her application, which was slightly out of time. The Crown did not oppose this request, acknowledging that the delay was not due to the applicant's fault and that minimal additional costs had been incurred. The Court was therefore asked to consider the grounds for special leave to appeal.

The legal issues before the Court concerned the applicant's conviction for abduction and rape. The applicant and her husband abducted Sian Kingi from Noosa on 27 November 1987. The applicant's submissions focused on specific passages within the record of interview and her own hand-written statements, which detailed the circumstances of the offences.

The Court was directed to particular questions and answers within the record of interview, commencing at page 293, which provided background to the commission of the offences. Further relevant material was highlighted at page 307, concerning the applicant's refusal to assist further at a certain stage of the proceedings. Crucially, the applicant's submissions drew attention to passages at page 304 and 305 of the record, which indicated the applicant's realisation that her husband intended to kill the victim. The applicant argued that it would have been obvious to her at that point that the victim was not to be released, given the subsequent actions of re-tying and re-gagging her.

Orders