Coughlan v The Queen - [2020] HCATrans 8

[2020] HCATrans 008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B60 of 2019

B e t w e e n -
EAMONN CHARLES COUGHLAN
Appellant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent

KIEFEL CJ
BELL J
GAGELER J
KEANE J
EDELMAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 12 FEBRUARY 2020, AT 10.01 AM

MR S.J. KEIM, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned juniors, MR M.N.B. THOMAS and MR D.M. WELLS, for the appellant. (instructed by Craven Lawyers)

MR C.W. HEATON, QC: May it please the Court, I appear with MR M.J. HYNES for the respondent. (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld))

KIEFEL CJ: Yes, Mr Keim.

MR KEIM: Your Honours, although it may not be obvious from our outline of oral submissions, we will address three different aspects of the appellant’s case in this matter. In the first section, we will look at three aspects of the matter which we say, in the absence of a strong case – for example, on matters like motive ‑ it is really essential that there is a strong forensic connection between the action for which the appellant has been convicted and the appellant.

Those three areas are the cause of the fire, the allegation that the appellant had petrol on his clothes and what we say is the failure to exclude or even attempt to exclude any innocent explanation for those alleged petrol residues which were found by Ms Maxwell in her examination of the matters.

KIEFEL CJ: Mr Keim, does your time estimate remain as it did in the written submissions at three hours or have you reduced that a little?

MR KEIM: Your Honour, I thought I had estimated one and a half hours. I have certainly reduced it significantly.

KIEFEL CJ: Yes, thank you.

MR KEIM: I am not just saying that to make the Court feel happier at this stage, your Honour.

KIEFEL CJ: There is nothing wrong with feeling happy at this stage.

MR KEIM: The second section, your Honour, looks in much less detail – in terms of taking the Court to passages in evidence – at a broad number of matters which we say are either neutral in circumstances where, for a strong circumstantial case, the Crown would usually require them to be favourable to the Crown or matters which are, in fact, favourable for the appellant. In the third section of our submissions, we wanted to take the Court to some authorities and discuss what we understand to be our learned friend’s proposition, which is that poorly proved or unproved factual matters can nonetheless support one another and obviate that lack of proof. So, they are the three sections that we will address.

BELL J: Just taking the last of those ‑ ‑ ‑

MR KEIM: Yes, your Honour.

BELL J: ‑ ‑ ‑ are you suggesting that the respondent’s submissions go beyond what might…

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 Coughlan 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: [2020] HCATrans 8
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Coughlan v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Queensland. The appellant, Coughlan, had been convicted of a number of offences, including murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The appeal concerned the admissibility of certain evidence and the fairness of the trial process.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence obtained in circumstances that may have infringed the appellant's rights, and whether the cumulative effect of certain directions given to the jury, and the admission of that evidence, rendered the trial unfair. Specifically, the Court had to determine the proper application of the exclusionary rule concerning evidence obtained in contravention of an accused's rights, and the principles governing the overall fairness of a criminal trial.

The High Court reasoned that the admission of the evidence in question was not justified, as it had been obtained in circumstances that breached the appellant's rights. The Court further held that the cumulative effect of the admission of this evidence, coupled with certain directions to the jury, had created a real risk that the jury's verdict was unsafe. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

Orders