Davidson v The Queen - [2020] HCATrans 141

[2020] HCATrans 141

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B6 of 2020

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

KIEFEL CJ
NETTLE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM BRISBANE BY VIDEO CONNECTION TO MELBOURNE

ON FRIDAY, 11 SEPTEMBER 2020, AT 9.30 AM

MR M.J. McCARTHY: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR M.J. JACKSON, for the applicant. (instructed by Fisher Dore Lawyers)

MS J.A. WOOLDRIDGE: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MS S. CUPINA, for the respondent. (instructed by Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld))

KIEFEL CJ: Thank you. The record will show that the hearings today are being video conferenced through Courtroom 2 in Canberra. I am in Brisbane and Justice Nettle is in Melbourne. Yes, Mr McCarthy.

MR McCARTHY: Thank you, your Honour. There is first an application to dispense with the time limit in rule 41. In that regard, I read and rely upon the affidavit of Lauren Phelps.

KIEFEL CJ: Yes. I think there is some controversy about this. The respondent seems to suggest there is insufficient justification.

MR McCARTHY: That is, as I understand it, still the current position, your Honour.

KIEFEL CJ: All right, yes.

MR McCARTHY: I am in your Honours’ hands as to whether you wish to deal with that now, or ‑ ‑ ‑

KIEFEL CJ: Yes, we will deal with it now. We have read the affidavit, Mr McCarthy.

MR McCARTHY: Thank you, your Honour, in that regard, I….. The submission is this. On the merits of the application itself, and as the timeline outlined in the affidavit records, there has been that process which is essential to the granting of legal aid for preparation of applications of this kind, coupled with what, in our submission, is a sufficiently meritorious application. Those are the materials and submissions I make on that application.

KIEFEL CJ: Yes. We will hear from Ms Wooldridge.

MS WOOLDRIDGE: May it please the Court. The application for the extension of time in which to appeal, it is maintained that the matters in the affidavit, in and of themselves, do not disclose sufficient justification for the delay. The matters litigated before this Court, with reference to the judgment, are self‑evident from that judgment. However, may I make the

observation that perhaps it is an issue best determined in conjunction with the substantive issues on the appeal because, in my submission ‑ ‑ ‑

KIEFEL CJ: On reflection, I think that is probably correct, Ms Wooldridge. We will hear argument on the substantive application for special leave and deal with the extension at the conclusion of argument from both parties.

MS WOOLDRIDGE: Thank you, your Honour.

KIEFEL CJ: Mr McCarthy, we will hear you as to the substantive matter.

MR McCARTHY: Thank you, your Honour. Firstly,…

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 Davidson v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Davidson v The Queen [2020] HCATrans 141
Case: [2020] HCATrans 141
Decision Date: 11 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Davidson v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Davidson, against his conviction for murder. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain evidence during his trial.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of the applicant's prior convictions and prior bad character. This involved determining whether the prejudicial effect of this evidence outweighed its probative value, and whether its admission was otherwise unfair to the applicant.

The High Court held that the admission of the evidence of prior convictions and bad character was an error. Their Honours reasoned that the evidence was not sufficiently probative of any issue in dispute at the trial and was highly likely to have prejudiced the jury against the applicant. The Court applied the principles governing the admission of such evidence, emphasising the need for a careful balancing of probative value against prejudicial effect to ensure a fair trial.

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

Orders