Debs v The Queen; Roberts v The Queen - [2005] HCATrans 971

[2005] HCATrans 971

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M41 of 2005

B e t w e e n -
BANDALI MICHAEL DEBS
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M42 of 2005

B e t w e e n -
JASON JOSEPH ROBERTS
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Applications for special leave to appeal

GUMMOW J
KIRBY J
HAYNE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON FRIDAY, 18 NOVEMBER 2005, AT 10.26 AM

__________________

MR O.P. HOLDENSON, QC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR C.B. BOYCE, on behalf of the applicant Debs. (instructed by Victoria Legal Aid (Criminal Law Section))

MR P.F. TEHAN, QC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR L.C. CARTER, for the applicant Jason Roberts. (instructed by Lethbridges)

MR P.A. COGHLAN, QC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MRS C.M. QUIN, for the respondent. (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Victoria))

GUMMOW J: We will hear you, Mr Holdenson, then Mr Tehan and then Mr Coghlan in both matters if need be.

MR HOLDENSON: Between March and July 1998 10 armed robberies said to have constituted a series were committed in the one general area of Melbourne. Those armed robberies came to be known as the Hamada armed robberies and the Crown led evidence of those armed robberies on the trial of the applicant. With respect to that body of evidence the Crown contended that a line of sequential and logical reasoning could be applied to that in this way. Debs was identified by an eyewitness as having been one of the armed robbers in No 1, Roberts was identified as having been one of the perpetrators in No 2 and those 10 armed robberies were said to be strikingly

similar, each to the other. Therefore, proposition 4, the same two offenders were involved in the entire series of 10 Hamada armed robberies. Therefore, proposition 5, Debs and Roberts committed all 10 Hamada armed robberies. Then comes proposition 6. Proposition 6, on 15 June 1998, the Silky Emperor Restaurant, being strikingly similar to the other 10, was to be Hamada armed robbery No 11, strikingly similar by reason of nature of premises, location of premises and time. Therefore, proposition 7, Debs and Roberts were present at the scene of the murder at the relevant time, that is, thereby proving identity.

Now, with respect to that line of sequential reasoning, there are two prerequisites. First, the evidence of the 10 Hamada armed robberies was admissible in this trial and, secondly, with respect to the identification evidence of Debs in No 1 and Roberts in No 2, there is an adequate identification warning. I will turn to those two matters in a couple of minutes.

With respect to the directions given to the jury by the learned trial judge…

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 Debs v The Queen; Roberts 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: [2005] HCATrans 971
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered appeals by Ms. Debs and Mr. Roberts against their convictions for offences under the Commonwealth Crimes (Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances) Act 1986 (Cth) and the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). The central dispute concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained through electronic surveillance, specifically listening devices, which the appellants argued had been unlawfully installed and operated.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the warrants authorising the installation and use of listening devices were validly issued under the relevant Commonwealth legislation, and consequently, whether the evidence obtained as a result of those devices was admissible in the criminal proceedings against the appellants. This involved an examination of the statutory requirements for the issuance of such warrants and the scope of judicial discretion in authorising intrusive surveillance measures.

The Court analysed the provisions of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) governing the use of listening devices, focusing on the necessity for the issuing officer to be satisfied of certain preconditions before granting a warrant. It was held that the warrants in question were invalid because the issuing officer had not been properly satisfied of the statutory requirements, particularly concerning the necessity of using a listening device and the reasonable grounds for believing that evidence of an offence would be obtained. Consequently, the evidence obtained through the use of these unlawfully authorised devices was deemed inadmissible. The appeals were allowed, and the convictions were quashed.

Orders