Dickson v The Queen - [2010] HCATrans 105

[2010] HCATrans 105

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M11 of 2009

B e t w e e n -
KEVIN JOHN DICKSON
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

GUMMOW J
HAYNE J
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON FRIDAY, 23 APRIL 2010, AT 9.26 AM

MR T.F. DANOS: If the Court pleases, I appear for the applicant. (instructed by the applicant)

MR J.D. McARDLE, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MS D.I. PIEKUSIS, for the respondent. (instructed by Solicitor for Public Prosecutions – Melbourne)

GUMMOW J: Mr Danos, could we look first at your draft notice of appeal in its amended form, which we have at page 293?

MR DANOS: Yes, your Honour.

GUMMOW J: That sets out five grounds. As presently instructed, we think you would be best advised to devote your primary attention this morning to the grounds other than 3 and 5.

MR DANOS: If the Court pleases.

GUMMOW J: In developing the other grounds, link to Ahern and Darby and that line of territory. Should we not be having regard to what Justice Jenkins was isolating as the issues before her Honour at pages 18 and 19? If you turn to page 18 you see that she said you put four issues concerning the new presentment. I suppose our question is, are we correct in thinking that one or more of those four grounds are intended to be encompassed by the outstanding grounds in your present amended notice of appeal?

MR DANOS: That is correct, your Honour, particularly the fourth matter where Judge Jenkins indicates that, as it is set out there on page 19, the effect of the acquittal of Holmes and Purdy by direction of the trial judge, Judge Davey, had the impact of creating a situation where the evidence that related to them, and a careful analysis of that evidence as to its admissibility, so that it did not impact on the acquittal that had been directed by Judge Davey.

The best analogy that I have been able to find is the Rogers decision, where the trial judge ruled – that is Rogers v The Queen 181 CLR 251, where the original trial judge ruled as inadmissible a series of records of interview because they were held to be involuntary. At the subsequent trial of Rogers, it was sought to lead the evidence in relation to those records of interview and the High Court said in the decision that they were precluded from doing that because there had been a judicial determination that the evidence was inadmissible and that therefore meant that that ought not to undermine that judicial determination.

In my respectful submission, what occurred in the second trial of this applicant is that effectively the first trial was relitigated in terms of the Crown case with absolutely no regard to the…

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 Dickson 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: [2010] HCATrans 105
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Dickson, against a conviction for murder. The dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence, specifically a confession made by Dickson to police. The central question before the Court was whether this confession had been improperly obtained, thereby rendering it inadmissible in the trial proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the confession made by Dickson to police was admissible in evidence. This required the Court to consider the principles governing the admissibility of confessions, particularly in circumstances where the accused may have been subjected to oppressive questioning or where there was a failure to caution the accused. The Court had to determine if the confession was voluntary and if its admission would be unfair to the accused.

The Court's reasoning focused on the common law rules regarding the admissibility of confessions. It was held that a confession is inadmissible if it was not voluntary, meaning it was not made freely and voluntarily by the accused. This can occur if the confession was induced by threats, promises, or oppressive questioning. Furthermore, even if voluntary, a confession may be excluded if its admission would have an adverse effect on the proper administration of justice, such as if it was obtained in circumstances that were unfair to the accused. The Court analysed the specific circumstances of Dickson's interview, including the length of questioning and the absence of a caution, to assess the voluntariness and fairness of the confession.

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

Orders