Brownlee v The Queen - [2000] HCATrans 20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S82 of 1998

B e t w e e n -
ANTHONY JOHN BROWNLEE
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

GAUDRON J
GUMMOW J
HAYNE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 11 FEBRUARY 2000, AT 12.33 PM

MR A.J. BROWNLEE appeared in person: Your Honours, good afternoon, Brownlee. I am the applicant. I should apologise in Court for my lack of representation.

GAUDRON J: We have read the papers, Mr Brownlee.

MR BROWNLEE: Thank you, your Honour. I intend to ‑ ‑ ‑

GAUDRON J: We will just take Mr Robertson’s appearance first.

MR A. ROBERTSON, SC: May it please your Honours. I appear with MR R.J. BROMWICH for the respondent. (instructed by Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

GAUDRON J: Yes, thank you. Yes, Mr Brownlee.

MR BROWNLEE: Your Honours, in the main I intend to rely on the written submissions and only touch on each point briefly. I do though have a small housekeeping matter. I failed to include copies of the judgment in Valentine and Snow which, if I may, I now hand up.

GAUDRON J: Thank you.

MR BROWNLEE: And, unfortunately, I only made two copies, your Honour, so I apologise for that.

GAUDRON J: We will share.

MR BROWNLEE: Thank you. I should also thank the DPP for supplying those for me and, in fact, in paying for and producing the application books. Your Honours, this application encompasses three special points, as your Honours will see from page 33 of the application book.

GUMMOW J: Well, firstly, you need an extension of time.

MR BROWNLEE: Thank you, your Honour. That is what I ask for, my apologies, and my affidavit is there in support of that.

GAUDRON J: Yes.

MR ROBERTSON: That is not opposed, your Honour.

GAUDRON J: Yes. Well, in that case, time is extended.

MR BROWNLEE: Thank you, your Honours. My apologies. Moving to page 33 of the application book the three points of this appeal centre around section 80 of the Constitution ‑ ‑ ‑

GUMMOW J: Well, do they? Only around that? At page 47 there seem to be questions 3 and 4 about some irregularities alleged in the actual separation procedures.

MR BROWNLEE: Yes, that is correct, your Honour.

GUMMOW J: They do not look like very strong special leave grounds. Am I right in thinking, which is the thrust of it, that you are really relying on the section 80 point?

MR BROWNLEE: Yes, I am.

GUMMOW J: Right.

GAUDRON J: But what do you say that encompasses, the jury being constituted by 12 ‑ ‑ ‑

MR BROWNLEE: The jury being constituted by 12.

GAUDRON J: At all times?

MR BROWNLEE: Yes.

GAUDRON J: And do you think that there is any other issue involved in the section 80 point?

MR BROWNLEE: The point 2 on page 33 of the summary…

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 Brownlee v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Brownlee v The Queen [2000] HCATrans 20
Case: [2000] HCATrans 20
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Mr Brownlee against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained from Mr Brownlee following his arrest.

The High Court was required to determine whether the evidence, specifically a confession made by Mr Brownlee, was improperly obtained and therefore inadmissible under the common law. This involved an examination of the circumstances surrounding the confession, including whether Mr Brownlee was properly cautioned and whether his will was overborne by the conduct of the police.

The Court applied the principle that confessions obtained in circumstances where a suspect's will has been overborne by the conduct of those in authority, or where the confession is otherwise involuntary, are inadmissible. It was held that the police had failed to adequately caution Mr Brownlee about his right to remain silent and the potential consequences of making a statement. This failure, coupled with the prolonged questioning and the manner in which it was conducted, led the Court to conclude that Mr Brownlee's confession was involuntary and therefore inadmissible.

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

Orders