Crothers v The Queen - [2011] HCATrans 203

[2011] HCATrans 203

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B75 of 2010

B e t w e e n -
MICHAEL CROTHERS
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

HAYNE J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM CANBERRA BY VIDEO LINK TO BRISBANE

ON FRIDAY, 12 AUGUST 2011, AT 10.38 AM

MR D.R. MacKENZIE: May it please the Court, I appear for the applicant. (instructed by Douglas Law)

MR M.J. COPLEY, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with MR G.P. CASH, for the respondent. (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld)

HAYNE J: Yes, Mr MacKenzie.

MR MacKENZIE: Your Honours, the only position of Mr Crothers is that the Court of Appeal was in error, at paragraph [302] in appeal book 2, page 203, to conclude that his conduct brought him into the exceptional category of cases where a trial judge was entitled to continue with the trial with an unrepresented accused. In particular it is suggested that the sentence in paragraph [302] on page 203 where it says:

He was insistent that he be represented only by Douglas Law –

is incorrect. Mr Crothers was given a grant of legal aid. For over two years he was represented by an in‑house lawyer for legal aid. There were problems with that in‑house lawyer which were acknowledged by the Legal Aid Office. When they offered him another in‑house Legal Aid lawyer he complained that he had only been visited for very short periods of time on about six occasions which included visiting him at courts when the matter were mentioned, and various other matters. He had a firm of lawyers, Douglas Law, who were willing and prepared to act for him, but at no time was he offered any other legal representation other than someone from the firm of lawyers, that is the in‑house Legal Aid Office, an organisation with which he had no confidence. As a result, in the trial he appeared for himself on the charge of murder.

He was in a trial that went for five weeks with four co‑accused. He was described in the material, which ultimately was not accepted by virtue of leave by the Court of Appeal but is referred to in the judgment, as being functionally illiterate with significant antisocial traits, and a psychologist gave an opinion that he would be incapable of understanding the issues involved in the trial. It is suggested by the respondent that this was a simple trial. In my respectful submission, that could not be the case, and in fact the trial judge in the appeal record book described the trial herself as a complex one.

There were many issues to which the applicant did not make any contribution, for example, the admission of hearsay from deceased witnesses, pursuant to the statutory regime in Queensland, statements of a Tripodi‑type nature, prejudicial statements such as the endorsement…

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 Crothers 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: [2011] HCATrans 203
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Crothers, against his conviction for murder. The dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence during the trial, specifically statements made by the applicant to police.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting the applicant's statements into evidence, given the circumstances under which they were obtained. This involved determining whether the statements were voluntary and whether their admission would have been unfairly prejudicial to the applicant, thereby outweighing their probative value.

The High Court, in a joint judgment by Hayne and Heydon JJ, found that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the statements. Their Honours applied the principles governing the admissibility of confessions, considering whether the statements were made freely and voluntarily. They also applied the exclusionary rule, weighing the prejudicial effect of the evidence against its relevance. The Court concluded that the statements were admissible and that the jury was entitled to consider them.

Orders