Doyle v The Queen - [2019] HCATrans 187

[2019] HCATrans 187

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B35 of 2019

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

BELL J
KEANE J
GORDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM SYDNEY BY VIDEO LINK TO BRISBANE

ON FRIDAY, 13 SEPTEMBER 2019, AT 9.30 AM

MR M.J. COPLEY, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear for the applicant with my learned friend, MS C.R. SMITH. (instructed by Legal Aid Queensland)

MR C.W. HEATON, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear on behalf of the respondent, with my learned friend, MS D. BALIC. (instructed by Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld))

BELL J: Yes, thank you, Mr Copley.

MR COPLEY: Your Honours, we seek an order that compliance with the time limit be dispensed with.

BELL J: Yes. Is there any objection to that, Mr Heaton?

MR HEATON: No, there is not, your Honour.

BELL J: Yes, you have that dispensation.

MR COPLEY: Thank you, your Honour. Your Honours, the error in this case is to be found at page 35 of the application book in paragraph [26] of the judgment where it was concluded that the directions given by the learned trial judge were correct. The directions concerned are set out at pages 32 to 33 of the application book at paragraph 40, or they can be seen in their original form at pages 13 to 14 in the transcript of the summing‑up beginning at line 30 on page 13 and going over to line 14 on page 14.

This case, it is submitted, was not an appropriate case for a direction or a comment that an inference of guilt may be strengthened in the absence of an explanation from the accused. The absence of an explanation was not clearly capable of assisting the jury to evaluate the evidence in this case for two reasons. First, it is submitted that there was an obvious hypothesis which remained reasonably open on the evidence. That hypothesis being, simply, that some acquaintance took or helped himself or borrowed the applicant’s vehicle without asking him and the associated unlikelihood that the taker or borrower of the vehicle would reveal the fact of that to the applicant having regard to the serious criminal behaviour that the driver of that vehicle engaged in on the evening concerned.

On this reasonably open hypothesis, the applicant would not have been able to offer any explanation for his vehicle’s presence at or involvement in the incident. All that he could have said was that he did not know how it came to be there. So, there would have been no fact or circumstance peculiarly within his knowledge on this hypothesis.

KEANE J: Mr Copley, what about the question as to how he came to be one and half kilometres from the site of the incident on Deception…

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 Doyle 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: [2019] HCATrans 187
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Doyle, against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained during police investigations and the proper application of the law relating to self-defence.

The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence that the applicant had remained silent when questioned by police after being cautioned. Further, the Court had to consider whether the jury directions on self-defence, particularly in relation to the subjective and objective elements of the defence, were adequate and correctly applied to the facts.

The Court held that the admission of evidence of the applicant's silence after caution was a material error. It was reasoned that such evidence could be used by the jury to infer guilt, which was contrary to the fundamental principle that an accused person is not obliged to assist the prosecution and that silence cannot be taken as an admission of guilt. On the issue of self-defence, the Court reiterated that the jury must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did not hold an honest belief that their actions were necessary for self-preservation, or that their belief, if held, was not reasonably proportionate to the perceived danger. The Court found that the directions given to the jury on this aspect were insufficient, failing to adequately explain the interplay between the subjective belief and the objective assessment of proportionality.

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

Orders