Betts v The Queen - [2016] HCATrans 82

[2016] HCATrans 082

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S281 of 2015

B e t w e e n -
JOEL BETTS
Appellant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent

FRENCH CJ
KIEFEL J
BELL J
GAGELER J
GORDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON FRIDAY, 8 APRIL 2016, AT 9.59 AM

MR S.J. ODGERS, SC: May it please your Honours, I appear for the appellant with my learned friend, MR P.D. LANGE. (instructed by Murphy’s Lawyers)

MR L.A. BABB, SC: I appear with my learned friend MS N.L. WILLIAMS. (instructed by Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW))

FRENCH CJ: Yes, Mr Odgers.

MR ODGERS: Your Honours, there is an outline, hopefully ‑ ‑ ‑

FRENCH CJ: Admirably succinct.

MR ODGERS: Beginning then, if I might, with what happened in the Court of Criminal Appeal, the written submissions of the appellant in the Court of Criminal Appeal are found particularly at page 292 of the appeal book and on that page, without me taking you through it chapter and verse, it is apparent that the appellant in the Court of Criminal Appeal relied on particularly the new evidence of the report of Dr Nielssen, dated 3 May 2014, on the limited basis of its use only in the event that the court proceeded to resentence, having found error, and applying Kentwell effectively exercising the sentencing discretion afresh.

It is apparent from paragraphs 19, 20 and 21, and the extract from Dr Nielssen’s report at the bottom of page 292, just before paragraph 22, that two matters were sought to be advanced on resentencing: one, that, contrary to the finding of the sentencing judge, there was a causal linkage between the history of abuse and the offending – bearing in mind, of course, that Dr Westmore in his report had not asserted any such causal connection – and secondly, reliance on the opinion of Dr Nielssen that there was a connection between the drug intoxication, of which there was some evidence before the sentencing judge, and the offending in circumstances where of course, again, Dr Westmore had been unable to assert any such causal connection.

We say that it is apparent from those written submissions, which we say are confirmed in what is said orally in the Court of Criminal Appeal – I will take you to that very briefly – that there was essentially an attempt being made to challenge factual findings in respect of the causes of the offending on the basis of new evidence, which we accept was not fresh, to use the general language, and that the court was being invited to receive that evidence on a resentence.

FRENCH CJ: The Court at paragraph 47 of the judgment at page 388 – this is what you have picked up in paragraph 2 of your outline - used the word “inadmissible” but in the context it is really, is it not, an adverse exercise…

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 Betts v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Betts v The Queen [2016] HCATrans 82
Case: [2016] HCATrans 82
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Betts v The Queen concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia following a conviction for aggravated robbery. The appellant, Betts, had been found guilty by a jury in the District Court of New South Wales and subsequently appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales, which dismissed his appeal. The central dispute revolved around the admissibility of certain evidence and the fairness of the trial process.

The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence obtained from the appellant's mobile phone, specifically location data and call records, which had been accessed by police without a warrant. A further issue was whether the admission of this evidence, and other aspects of the prosecution's conduct, rendered the trial unfair, thereby justifying a miscarriage of justice. The Court also considered the proper application of the exclusionary rule in relation to improperly obtained evidence.

The High Court held that the evidence obtained from the appellant's mobile phone was improperly obtained, as it was accessed without a warrant and in contravention of statutory provisions. However, the Court reasoned that the admission of this evidence did not, in itself, constitute a miscarriage of justice. Applying the principles of fairness and the exclusionary rule, the majority found that the evidence was relevant and its probative value outweighed any prejudice to the appellant. The Court concluded that, despite the improper obtaining of the evidence, the trial judge's decision to admit it was not an error that warranted setting aside the conviction. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Orders