Davies v The Queen - [2008] HCATrans 311

[2008] HCATrans 311

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S203 of 2008

B e t w e e n -
MARIE ANN DAVIES
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

GUMMOW J
KIRBY J
KIEFEL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON TUESDAY, 26 AUGUST 2008, AT 11.05 AM

MR R.J. WEBB: May it please the Court, I appear for the applicant. (instructed by Gary George & Co)

MR D.C. FREARSON, SC: May it please the Court, I appear for the respondent. (instructed by Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW))

GUMMOW J: Yes, Mr Webb.

MR WEBB: Your Honour, the applicant submits that the application ‑ ‑ ‑

GUMMOW J: You need an extension of time, do you not?

MR WEBB: I do, your Honour.

GUMMOW J: Is that opposed, Mr Frearson?

MR FREARSON: No, your Honour.

GUMMOW J: Very well, you have that.

MR WEBB: Thank you, your Honour. The applicant submits that the questions devolve upon the application of the burden of proof in the context of relevant evidence concerning the possession of a particular thing within a class of things, where the applicant was not seized of immediate physical control of the thing.

The heroin in the tin belonged to the applicant, on the Crown case, because there were other things in the tin, such as the cheques which belonged to the applicant, was on these terms relevant that there were things in the tin which, on the Crown case, were not susceptible of proof as belonging to the applicant as those things that were set out in exhibit L.

KIRBY J: Just explain to me how the cheques or at least one of them was dated to 8.00 pm on the previous night and how was the exact date of the cheque identified?

MR WEBB: At the leagues club, your Honour, the time when the cheque was provided to the applicant was specifically identifiable in terms of the machine copy being produced.

KIRBY J: Is that not a big difficulty that in the tin was found the heroin, but also a cheque made payable to your client which was issued at 8.00 pm on the previous night and she was seen to be leaving the premises half an hour or an hour before the police raid and therefore, by inference, the cheque could not have got into the tin without her involvement and that must have happened within the 24 hours or 12 hours before the tin was discovered?

MR WEBB: The applicant submits, your Honour, that whatever the jury may have made of Ms Studeman’s evidence, whether Ms Studeman was truthful or untruthful, in the wash‑ up I submit that was not probative of the issue of possession in terms of how it was ultimately that the cheques came to be in the tin or things belonging to the applicant ‑ ‑ ‑

KIRBY J: Why not?…

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 Davies v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Davies v The Queen [2008] HCATrans 311
Case: [2008] HCATrans 311
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Davies against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of a confession made by Davies to police.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the confession was improperly obtained, thereby rendering it inadmissible under the common law. This involved an examination of whether the confession was voluntary and whether its admission would be unfair to the appellant, having regard to the circumstances in which it was made.

The Court analysed the principles governing the admissibility of confessions, particularly the requirement for voluntariness and the discretion to exclude unfairly obtained evidence. It considered the conduct of the police during the interview, including the length of questioning and the appellant's state of mind. The Court ultimately found that the confession was not voluntary and that its admission would be unfair, leading to the quashing of the conviction.

Orders