Legal Research
Cases
Collins v The Queen

Collins v The Queen

Case [2012] VSCA 163 30 July 2012

Conviction

Admissibility of Evidence

Appeal

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2010 0169
RODNEY CHARLES COLLINS	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WARREN CJ, REDLICH and HANSEN JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	1 May 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 July 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSCA 163	1^st revision 5 October 2012
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Collins [2010] VSC 209 (Curtain J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Two counts of murder – Admissibility of conversations covertly recorded in prison – Discretion to exclude evidence on basis of unfairness and/or public policy grounds – R v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159; Tofilau v The Queen (2007) 231 CLR 396; Em v The Queen (2007) 232 CLR 67 referred to – Judge’s factual findings open – Evidence properly admitted – Appeal dismissed.

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Two counts of murder – Life imprisonment with non-parole period of 32 years – Not manifestly excessive – Judge had proper regard to appellant’s age and principles relating to ‘crushing sentences’ – Offences correctly described as ‘worst category’ – Relevance of restrictive prison conditions – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr C B Boyce	C D Traill Lawyers
For the Crown	Mr T Gyorffy SC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

WARREN CJ
REDLICH JA:

We have had the advantage of reading in draft form the judgment of Hansen JA. We agree with his Honour, for the reasons that he gives, that the appeals against conviction and sentence should both be dismissed.

However, we would add that the condition in which the appellant is currently detained is troubling. In the course of submissions counsel for the appellant adverted, effectively in passing, that the appellant’s custodial arrangements were harsh. No separate argument was articulated in any precise manner. The Court took the matter up with the Crown. Ultimately, it was only through the questioning by the Court and the request for information that the Crown came to expose the circumstances of the appellant’s custody. Whilst the appellant’s counsel relied on the circumstances and burden of imprisonment as a particular of manifest excess, no evidence was given. Eventually, at the Court’s request, the Crown filed an affidavit sworn by Brendan Francis Money, the Director of the Sentence Management Branch of Corrections Victoria, describing the conditions of the appellant’s custody.

Mr Money deposes that in November 2011, whilst in custody, the appellant was observed to have a black eye. CCTV footage showed the appellant pushing and shoving with another prisoner ‘but it was not clear that there was any assault or how the incident started’. The appellant told the prison authorities that he got the black eye after slipping in the shower. It appears that the prison authorities did not accept this explanation and believed that the appellant was assaulted. Mr Money deposes that the prison authorities were concerned about the appellant ‘being unpopular with other prisoners’. He says that ‘[t]here has been considerable speculation amongst the…

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 Collins v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Collins v The Queen [2012] VSCA 163
Case: [2012] VSCA 163
Decision Date: 30 July 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Collins v The Queen, the appellant, Collins, faced two counts of murder. The primary legal dispute involved the admissibility of covertly recorded conversations from prison and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The court had to determine whether the judge correctly exercised discretion to exclude evidence on grounds of unfairness and public policy, referencing prior cases such as R v Swaffield, Tofilau v The Queen, and Em v The Queen. The court also needed to assess whether the life imprisonment sentence, with a non-parole period of 32 years, was manifestly excessive, considering the principles relating to 'crushing sentences' and the severity of the offences.

The High Court concluded that the judge's findings were open and appropriately exercised discretion in admitting the evidence, given the circumstances. The court found that the evidence did not warrant exclusion on fairness or public policy grounds, as it was relevant and necessary for the trial. The court further determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as the judge had properly considered the appellant's age and the principles of sentencing. The court recognised the gravity of the crimes, describing them as belonging to the 'worst category', and acknowledged the restrictive conditions of the prison sentence. The appeal was dismissed on both the admissibility of the evidence and the appropriateness of the sentence.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss both the appeal concerning the admissibility of the evidence and the appeal regarding the sentence. The conviction and sentence remained upheld, reflecting the court's confidence in the judge's handling of the case.

Orders