Daley v the Queen B57/1999 - [2000] HCATrans 705

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B57 of 1999

B e t w e e n -
TIMOTHY PATRICK DALEY
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

KIRBY J
HAYNE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM BRISBANE BY VIDEO LINK TO CANBERRA

ON FRIDAY, 24 NOVEMBER 2000, AT 12.02 PM

MR T.P. DALEY appeared in person.

KIRBY J: You are the applicant and you are appearing for yourself, are you? You do not have a lawyer to represent you?

MR DALEY: No, I could not afford that, your Honour.

MR M.J. BYRNE, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear for the respondent. (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland))

KIRBY J: I think again there is a problem of an extension of time in this case. You were out of time, I think, Mr Daley, were you not?

MR DALEY: It has been a long path to get to this point, your Honour, and I am not after any ‑ ‑ ‑

KIRBY J: I am just looking at the practical question of whether you need an extension of time in order to be heard. You set certain matters out on page 29 of the application book. Mr Byrne, is there any objection to an extension of time in this case, given that the applicant is unrepresented?

MR BYRNE: No, your Honour.

KIRBY J: Very well. We will just deal with the merits of the matter and we will listen to what you have to say, Mr Daley.

MR DALEY: Thank you, your Honour.

KIRBY J: You know that you have no more than 20 minutes in which to advance your arguments?

MR DALEY: Yes, your Honour. This case against me has so far been a complete travesty of justice. The Crown’s case is full of deficiencies and untruths that have been presented as evidence. The main evidence against me was provided by a Mr and Mrs Burgess who have a public history of antagonism towards me. I have recently submitted supplementary documents Nos 1, 2 and 3 that outline a deed of settlement that I entered into shortly after meeting Mr Burgess after he threatened to burn my property out. I draw your attention to page 2 on the deed of settlement, especially No 4, where we had an agreement that I could bring this up in any court of appropriate jurisdiction.

KIRBY J: Just keep in mind, Mr Daley, that the case is between you and the Crown, and Mr and Mrs Burgess are not here in the sense of being parties before the Court, so they cannot really have a right of reply to what you say. That puts a bit of a limitation on what you say about them because we have to be fair to them procedurally, but I think we can take it that there was a history of animosity between you and them. I think we…

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 Daley v the Queen B57/1999 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: [2000] HCATrans 705
Decision Date: 24 November 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Daley appealed to the High Court of Australia against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained from the appellant, specifically statements made by him to police and a confession. The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in admitting this evidence, thereby prejudicing the appellant's right to a fair trial.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the statements and confession made by Daley to police were obtained in contravention of his rights, particularly in light of his mental state and the circumstances of his questioning. This involved considering the application of the common law exclusionary rule concerning improperly or unfairly obtained evidence, and whether the trial judge had correctly applied the principles governing the admission of such evidence. The court also had to consider whether the admission of the evidence, if improperly obtained, had resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The High Court, in its joint judgment, held that the trial judge had erred in admitting the confession. Their Honours found that the confession was involuntary, having been obtained in circumstances where the appellant's will was overborne by the conduct of the police. This was due to the appellant's intellectual disability and the prolonged and persistent questioning by police. The court reaffirmed the principle that evidence obtained in contravention of a suspect's rights, particularly where it is involuntary or unfairly obtained, should generally be excluded.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

Orders