Criminal Law—Robbery—Confession—Warning after police evidence that jury had to be satisfied that confession was made and of its truth—Failure to repeat in charge to jury—Evidence of new wealth after robbery—Relevance to question of whether confession made.
Decisions
June 20. The following written judgments were delivered:- BARWICK C.J., GIBBS AND MASON JJ. The applicant and six other men were charged on indictment with armed robbery and after a trial extending over thirty-nine days the applicant and four of the other accused men were convicted on that charge; the other two men were convicted on other counts. The applicant unsuccessfully applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (1) and now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court. (at p259)
2. There was clear evidence that the robbery was committed. In the early hours of the morning of 11th June 1970 two men, one wearing a uniform stolen from a policeman, by pretending to be police officers persuaded a control officer to open a door allowing them to enter the premises of M.S.S. Security Express Pty. Ltd. at South Melbourne; they thereupon seized the control officer, threatened him with a pistol, overpowered him and forced him to open the doors giving access to a cage where money was stored. About $289,000 was stolen. However, the only evidence implicating the applicant in the crime was a confession that he allegedly made to the police. The Crown led evidence that on 19th May 1971 the applicant accompanied some police officers to a police station and, in response to questions, gave a detailed account of the events of the night of 11th June 1970. The police officers said that they made a typed record of their questions and of the applicant's answers but that the applicant refused to sign it. The typed document was not in evidence, but the police officers swore that in the course of the questioning the applicant admitted that he had taken part in the armed robbery; he said that he went with others to the scene of the crime and that after two men, one of whom was disguised as a policeman, had secured entry to the premises, he went in and helped to carry out the money. The applicant, in a statement from the dock, denied this evidence and protested his innocence; he said that the police officers had not questioned him and that he had made no admissions, but that in his presence a police officer had typed down what was supposed to have been a record of questions and answers asked and given but that this was in truth a complete concoction; he said, using the current argot, that he had been "verballed". Counsel for the applicant submitted that there were various features of the alleged confession that rendered it suspect, and…
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 Burns v the Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Burns v the Queen [1975] HCA 21
Case
[1975] HCA 21
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered the appeal of Burns against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained from the appellant, specifically statements made by him to police and items seized from his person and property.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the evidence, which included admissions and physical items, had been obtained in contravention of the appellant's rights and, if so, whether it should have been excluded from the trial. This involved a consideration of the common law powers of police to question and search suspects, and the discretion of the trial judge to exclude evidence obtained improperly or unfairly.
The Court engaged in a detailed examination of the circumstances surrounding the appellant's arrest and questioning. It was held that the police had acted unlawfully in detaining the appellant for an extended period without charging him and in questioning him extensively during that time. The Court affirmed the principle that while police have powers to investigate crime, these powers are not unlimited and must be exercised in accordance with the law. The admissibility of evidence obtained in breach of these powers is a matter for the trial judge's discretion, requiring a balancing of the probative value of the evidence against the unfairness or impropriety of its acquisition. In this instance, the Court found that the trial judge had erred in admitting the evidence, as the impropriety of its acquisition was such that it ought to have been excluded.
The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.