[2009] HCATrans 245
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B23 of 2009
B e t w e e n -
RUSSELL STEWART CRUMP
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal
FRENCH CJ
KIEFEL J
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
FROM CANBERRA BY VIDEO LINK TO BRISBANE
ON FRIDAY, 2 OCTOBER 2009, AT 11.37 AM
Copyright in the High Court of Australia
MR R.P. DEVLIN, SC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MR M.J. BYRNE, of counsel for the applicant. (instructed by Hatzis Lawyers)
MR R.G. MARTIN, SC: If the Court pleases, I appear for the respondent. (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld))
FRENCH CJ: Yes, Mr Devlin.
MR DEVLIN: Your Honours, we do not wish to add anything to our written outline.
FRENCH CJ: The Court has read the written submissions which have been filed on both sides. On that basis, we will not need to call on you, Mr Martin.
In this case the applicant was convicted of the murder of his de facto wife. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland dismissed his appeal against conviction on 28 May 2004. The evidence showed the case against the applicant had been a strong circumstantial case.
The applicant now seeks to raise matters not previously raised, in particular, he contends that the evidence of a number of witnesses concerning his violence towards the deceased over a substantial period of time, including admissions by him, should not have been admitted as relevant to his motive. He seeks to attach significance to items given to the police by the witness Duffy. His account, that is the account of the witness, which included an admission of the murder, was held by the Court of Appeal to be bizarre and implausible. No questions were asked nor directions sought to raise such an issue at the trial.
The applicant also argues that the prosecution should have called the witness Beavan, whose evidence the Court of Appeal held to be irrelevant. The applicant now seeks to connect it with the evidence of the witness Duffy.
The applicant would require an extension of time for the filing of his application. We would not grant that extension. We are not persuaded that the grounds have sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave. Special leave would be refused.
The Court will now adjourn briefly to reconstitute.
AT 11.39 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED
- AGLC
- Crump v The Queen [2009] HCATrans 245
- Case
- [2009] HCATrans 245
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the evidence obtained from the appellant's mobile phone, specifically text messages and call logs, was admissible at trial. This involved a consideration of the scope and application of the *Criminal Code* (Qld) and the common law rules relating to the admissibility of evidence, particularly concerning the use of digital evidence and the potential for unfair prejudice. The court also considered whether the admission of this evidence had resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
The High Court, comprising French CJ and Kiefel J, ultimately allowed the appeal. Their Honours reasoned that the evidence obtained from the mobile phone had been improperly admitted at trial. They found that the search of the phone had exceeded the scope of lawful authority and that the admission of the digital evidence, given its nature and the circumstances of its acquisition, had created an unacceptable risk of unfair prejudice to the appellant. Consequently, the court concluded that the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory.
The High Court ordered that the appeal be allowed, the conviction be quashed, and a new trial be ordered.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.