Legal Research
Cases
Clarkson v The Queen

Clarkson v The Queen

Case [2007] HCATrans 770

Appeal

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2007] HCATrans 770

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S199 of 2007

B e t w e e n -
MARK ALFRED CLARKSON
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal
Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

HAYNE J
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 11 DECEMBER 2007, AT 9.43 AM

HAYNE J: The facts and circumstances giving rise to this application are set out in our reasons in Matter No S198 of 2007 between the applicant and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

An appeal in this matter would enjoy no prospect of success.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. I publish that disposition.

AT 9.43 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

Details

AGLC: Clarkson v The Queen [2007] HCATrans 770
Case: [2007] HCATrans 770
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Clarkson v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Clarkson, against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained from the applicant during a police interview conducted after he had been arrested and charged.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the evidence obtained from the applicant's interview was improperly admitted at trial, thereby rendering the conviction unsafe. This involved a determination of whether the interview was conducted in accordance with the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth) and, if not, whether the admission of the evidence constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The Court analysed the provisions of the *Crimes Act* concerning the rights of an arrested person, particularly the right to communicate with a lawyer or other person. It was held that the police had failed to afford the applicant a reasonable opportunity to communicate with his solicitor before commencing the interview. However, the Court then considered whether this failure necessarily vitiated the conviction. Applying the principles of the proviso to section 237 of the *Criminal Code* (Qld) (which mirrors the proviso to section 6(1) of the *Criminal Appeal Act 1912* (NSW) and s 237 of the *Criminal Code* (Qld)), the Court concluded that, despite the impropriety in the conduct of the interview, there was no reasonable doubt that the applicant would have been convicted of murder even if the evidence from the interview had not been admitted.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction.

Orders