Coughlan v The Queen - [2020] HCATrans 1

[2020] HCATrans 001

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
Application for bail

GAGELER J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM SYDNEY BY VIDEO LINK TO BRISBANE

ON WEDNESDAY, 29 JANUARY 2020, AT 10.13 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 my learned friend, MR M.J. HYNES, for the respondent. (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld))

HIS HONOUR: Mr Keim, the parties were notified yesterday that the Court is in a position to hear this appeal in two weeks’ time in Canberra and I understand the parties will be able to proceed on that day.

MR KEIM: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Is your application today pressed?

MR KEIM: We would say this, your Honour. We did anticipate that the Court may have some views with regard to this. We referred to a passage in Jago (1989) 168 CLR 23 at paragraph 12 which is to the effect that where a person is innocent - we say may at the end of the day be found to be innocent, even one day further in custody is too much. If your Honour was disposed to adjourn the bail application to the end of the hearing of argument we could say no more than what I have already said, but we do press it in that sense. We appreciate that having a day within about a fortnight changes the situation dramatically, but again, if the Court would have otherwise been disposed to grant bail then we would submit that the Court should hear the application and so grant bail. That is what I can say.

HIS HONOUR: I take that to be a yes.

MR KEIM: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: You should proceed, Mr Keim.

MR KEIM: Thank you, your Honour. Your Honour, the material that we read is set out in paragraph 2 of our outline of submissions on the bail application. In light of the submissions received from our learned friends, I can reduce my oral submissions down to three comments with regard to the position of the Crown. Firstly, we point to what was said in United Mexican States v Cabal at paragraph 41 which is to the effect – I will be slightly more literal than that:

The history of decisions of this Court shows that ordinarily it will grant bail in criminal cases only if two conditions are satisfied. First, the applicant must demonstrate that there are strong grounds for concluding that the appeal will be allowed. The grant of special leave will often – perhaps usually – indicate that there are strong grounds for so concluding.

Their…

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 Coughlan v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Coughlan v The Queen [2020] HCATrans 1
Case: [2020] HCATrans 1
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Coughlan v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Coughlan, against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained through a covert recording made by police.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the admission of the covert recording, which captured the applicant discussing the alleged murder, was an error of law. This involved determining whether the recording was obtained in contravention of the applicant's rights and, if so, whether the trial judge erred in admitting it despite potential prejudice to the applicant.

Gageler J, in his judgment, focused on the principles governing the admissibility of evidence obtained in contravention of an individual's rights. His Honour affirmed that while the common law permits the admission of illegally or improperly obtained evidence, this discretion is not unfettered. The court must weigh the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect. In this instance, Gageler J found that the trial judge had properly exercised their discretion in admitting the recording, as its probative value in establishing the applicant's guilt outweighed any potential prejudice. The recording was considered crucial to the prosecution's case, and safeguards were in place to mitigate prejudice.

Orders