Appeal allowed.

Set aside the order of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Queensland and in lieu thereof order that the appeal to that Court be allowed and that the appellant's conviction be quashed and a verdict of acquittal be entered.

Decisions

BRENNAN J On 9 October 1989, 19 prisoners were transported in the back of a prison van from Woodford Correctional Centre near Brisbane to the Rockhampton Correctional Centre at Etna Creek. This was a day's journey, the first stage of a journey to Townsville. The prisoners were to stay overnight at Etna Creek. The van was divided into two by a partition, 10 prisoners on one side of the van, 9 on the other. Some of the prisoners were handcuffed individually, some were handcuffed to another prisoner. They were to sit on benches along either side of the van. The van was equipped with a portable
toilet and a box containing some food and drink. The mode of transportation was barbarous: there were no means of supervising the prisoners in the van, nor were the prisoners let out of the van en route to Etna Creek. However, the Court was informed that the mode of transportation of prisoners in Queensland has since been changed and the present arrangements afford continuous supervision of prisoners being transported and frequent stops on lengthy journeys.

2. The appellant Edwards, who was one of the prisoners in the van, was convicted of procuring another of the prisoners, Glen Edward Williams, to commit an act of gross indecency upon him, the consent of Williams being obtained by threats and by fear of bodily harm. Williams gave evidence that he was hit by other prisoners and forced to commit acts of gross indecency upon them in the course of the journey. Then, he said, Edwards procured him to put Edwards' penis in his mouth by promising that he, Edwards, would protect Williams from further assaults. When the van arrived at Etna Creek, Williams was taken to the Rockhampton Base Hospital where he was found to be suffering from multiple soft tissue injuries, particularly of the head. There was no other evidence in the prosecution case which corroborated the evidence given by Williams.

3. Edwards gave evidence in his defence, denying that he had hit Williams during the journey to Etna Creek or that he had had anything at all to do with Williams during that journey. In the course of his evidence, this passage appears:

" Did you see anything happen in relation to Mr Williams? -- There were things going on, but I just didn't worry about it. Why is that?-- I didn't want to get involved in it. If
I had seen something I probably would have got the same
treatment."

4. In cross-examination Edwards said:

"…

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 Edwards v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Edwards v The Queen [1993] HCA 63
Case: [1993] HCA 63
Decision Date: 17 November 1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

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

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence obtained from the applicant following his arrest. Specifically, the court had to determine if this evidence was obtained in contravention of the applicant's legal rights and, if so, whether its admission nonetheless served the interests of justice. A further issue concerned the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the applicant's confession.

The High Court, in a joint judgment, held that the evidence in question had been obtained in contravention of the applicant's rights. However, the court applied the proviso to section 6(1) of the *Criminal Appeal Act 1912* (NSW), finding that despite the error in admitting the evidence, there had been no miscarriage of justice. The court reasoned that the evidence of guilt was so overwhelming that the jury would inevitably have convicted the applicant even if the improperly obtained evidence had been excluded. The directions to the jury regarding the confession were also found to be sufficient.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction.

Orders