Civic v The Queen - [2016] HCATrans 64

[2016] HCATrans 064

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
BRISBANE No B21 of 2015
No B22 of 2015

B e t w e e n -
MIRKO CIVIC
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Applications for special leave to appeal

GAGELER J
NETTLE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT BRISBANE ON FRIDAY, 11 MARCH 2016, AT 1.55 PM

MR S. BARATARAJ: May it please the Court, I appear for the applicant. (instructed by S Barataraj of Counsel)

MS V.A. LOURY: May it please the Court, I appear for the respondent. (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions)

GAGELER J: Yes, Mr Barataraj.

MR BARATARAJ: Excuse me one minute.

GAGELER J: Mr Barataraj ‑ ‑ ‑

MR BARATARAJ: I think – I am looking for my glasses, it is all right.

GAGELER J: You can take it that we have read your written submissions, Mr Barataraj.

MR BARATARAJ: Thank you, your Honour. I just have to raise a couple of issues in this with respect to the question of fact more than a question of law. The evidence that was given by the principal witness, Pringle and that was supported by his girlfriend, Zamparutti, was very critical with respect to the conviction of the applicant. Now, he gave evidence that there was a conversation between him and the applicant just before the incident and during that conversation the deceased interrupted the call and there was an altercation between the deceased and the applicant.

Now, when the call was finished, obviously, the applicant was coming over to the house. The information really is provided by the witness, Pringle, was supported by Zamparutti because she said in the evidence that she heard him talking to the applicant. Now, all this – there was no challenge to that information by the defence counsel and there was no challenge also on the credibility of the witnesses. Now, I would like to recall ‑ ‑ ‑

GAGELER J: Are these submissions directed to telling us that this is not a question of fact, there is some question of law involved?

MR BARATARAJ: This is a question of fact and the fact that the whole evidence that was presented in the trial was – I mean, the main witness, principal witness, and her girlfriend presented evidence which was false which I am trying to prove.

GAGELER J: Is there any question of principle raised by your application?

MR BARATARAJ: The principle is that the applicant is entitled to a fair trial and if for argument’s sake, if a witness gives evidence in a trial that convicts a person and let us say, sometime the guy he recants that information and if that happens obviously the whole trial would have to be reviewed and whether or not the person was indeed guilty of the offence.

NETTLE J: Mr Barataraj, we do understand that that was recanted. We also understand that the recantment was information that was available to…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Civic v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] HCATrans 64
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Civic against a decision of the Queen's Bench. The dispute concerned the interpretation and application of certain provisions within the *Criminal Code Act 1899* (Qld) in relation to the appellant's conviction.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in directing the jury on the elements of the offence for which Civic was convicted. Specifically, the court had to determine if the jury had been adequately instructed on the requisite mental state (mens rea) for the offence, and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on that basis.

Gageler and Nettle JJ, in their joint judgment, analysed the relevant sections of the *Criminal Code Act 1899* (Qld) and relevant High Court authority on the interpretation of criminal statutes. They found that the jury directions provided at trial did not accurately reflect the statutory requirements for the offence, particularly concerning the appellant's knowledge or intent. The court emphasised the importance of precise jury instructions in ensuring that the prosecution discharges its burden of proving all elements of an offence. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal.

Orders