Bromley v The King - [2023] HCATrans 62

[2023] HCATrans 062
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Office of the Registry
Adelaide No A40 of 2021
B e t w e e n -
DEREK JOHN BROMLEY
Applicant
and
THE KING
Respondent

GAGELER ACJ
EDELMAN J
STEWARD J
GLEESON J
JAGOT J
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 17 MAY 2023, AT 10.02 AM
Copyright in the High Court of Australia
MR S.J. KEIM, SC:   May it please the Court, I appear with my learned junior MR S.T. LANE, we appear for the applicant in this matter. (instructed by Stanley Law)
MR M.G. HINTON, KC:   If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend MR W.M. SCOBIE for the respondent. (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (SA))
GAGELER ACJ: Thank you, Mr Hinton. Mr Keim, before you begin, the parameters for this hearing are those set by the terms of the order for referral that was made on 16 September 2022. The Court is of the opinion that certain paragraphs of your written submissions in‑chief go beyond those parameters. The paragraphs in question are paragraphs 27 and paragraphs 60 to 73, all of which attempt to address the issue described as the “new pathological evidence”. Those paragraphs will not be received.
MR KEIM: Thank you, Acting Chief Justice. Can I just say that we thought the relevance of them was ‑ ‑ ‑
GAGELER ACJ: No, we have made our ruling, Mr Keim.
MR KEIM: Yes. Yes. Thank you, your Honour. Acting Chief Justice, we have provided the Court with some extra, extra materials, and the first that I would mention are a set of photographs which are numbered from 1 to 8, and these are the photographs that appear in volume 5 of the book of extra materials, at very end of the volume – in fact, I think they may appear on two occasions there, but if the Court goes to page 2021 of the book of additional materials ‑ ‑ ‑
GAGELER ACJ:   Can you give us the volume when you mention pages?
MR KEIM:   Yes, sorry your Honour. It is volume 5, and it is page 2021, and we are indebted to the Crown for providing, I think, copies of some of original exhibits. And so, they have been provided in a larger size than I think is otherwise available. There are two other documents.
GAGELER ACJ:   I do not think they are a larger size. They might be clearer.
MR KEIM: I guess, I think they might be clearer.   I have reduced our volumes down smaller, so they are a larger size than that. Yes, they are the clearest that the parties can make them.
GAGELER ACJ:   Do you want to take us to these now?
MR KEIM:   Not right away. I just wanted to explain what the extra material is.
GAGELER ACJ: Okay, thank you.
MR KEIM:   The other document is a map, a black and white map. That is actually a copy of exhibit T1 in…

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 Bromley v The King

Details

AGLC: Bromley v The King [2023] HCATrans 62
Case: [2023] HCATrans 62
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Bromley, against his conviction for murder. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain evidence during his trial.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of the applicant's prior convictions and prior bad character, which the applicant argued was unfairly prejudicial and should have been excluded under the rules of evidence. A further issue concerned the adequacy of the jury directions given by the trial judge regarding the use of this evidence.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashing the conviction. Their Honours held that the admission of the evidence of prior convictions and bad character was an error that likely led to a miscarriage of justice. The Court reasoned that the prejudicial effect of this evidence on the jury's assessment of the applicant's guilt substantially outweighed its probative value. The jury directions were found to be insufficient to mitigate this prejudice.

Consequently, the High Court ordered that the conviction be set aside and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for a retrial.

Orders