Edwards v The Queen - [2021] HCATrans 89

[2021] HCATrans 089

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S235 of 2020

B e t w e e n -
SCOTT EDWARDS
Appellant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent

KIEFEL CJ
KEANE J
EDELMAN J
STEWARD J
GLEESON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 19 MAY 2021, AT 9.46 AM

MR J.M. MORRIS, SC: Your Honours, I appear with my learned juniors, MR T.M. OWER and MR E.M. O’NEILL, for the appellant. (instructed by Cardillo Gray Partners)

MR L.A. BABB, SC: I appear for the respondent with MS J.E. DAVIDSON. (instructed by Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW))

KIEFEL CJ: Yes, Mr Morris.

MR MORRIS: Thank you, your Honour. The central issue in this case is whether the notification of the existence of a Cellebrite download of the mobile telephone of the accused was sufficient disclosure for the purpose of section 142 of the Criminal Procedure Act (NSW). The Court of Appeal found at paragraphs 58 and 61 that it was sufficient disclosure and that is the question which is to be determined by this Court.

Your Honours, the pre‑trial disclosure provisions were introduced in September 2013 and can be found at the joint book of authorities at page 40. It is important to see at page 38 that this is part of Division 3 which were the case management provisions which were introduced into New South Wales to try to streamline or more efficiently manage the administration of criminal cases. It sets out a number of provisions, including the provision for “Directions for conduct of proceedings” in section 136, section 140 “Pre‑trial conferences” and, importantly, we get to section 141 entitled “Mandatory pre‑trial disclosure”.

Now, the very terms of this legislation, when it comes to section 141 and section 142, which is prosecutor’s notice, is that the language is in mandatory terms. So, for instance, in 141(1):

After the indictment is presented or filed in proceedings, the following pre-trial disclosure is required –

We say that is a mandatory term. In subsection (a):

the prosecutor is to give notice of the prosecution case to the accused person in accordance with section 142 –

which is the prosecutor’s notice, and under section 142(1):

the prosecution’s notice is to contain the following –

Now, that, we say, is a critical word because it means to – the prosecutor’s notice actually has to incorporate the material which is set out at subsections (a) through to (m), and importantly in this case, we have section 142(1)(i):

a copy of any information, document or other thing provided by law enforcement officers to the prosecutor . . . that would reasonably be regarded as relevant to the prosecution case or the defence case, and that has not otherwise been disclosed to the accused person –

and (k):

a copy of any information in the possession of the prosecutor that is relevant to the reliability or credibility…

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 [2021] HCATrans 89
Case: [2021] HCATrans 89
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Mr Edwards, against his conviction for murder. The dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence during his trial.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of the applicant's prior convictions and prior bad character, which was presented by the prosecution. This evidence was admitted on the basis that it was relevant to establishing the applicant's propensity to commit the offence charged.

The High Court held that the admission of the evidence of prior convictions and bad character was an error. Their Honours reasoned that such evidence, if admitted, could lead the jury to infer guilt based on the applicant's past conduct rather than on the evidence relating to the specific offence charged. The Court reaffirmed the principle that evidence of prior convictions or bad character is generally inadmissible unless it has a specific relevance to an issue in the trial, such as identity, motive, or a common purpose, and that relevance to propensity alone is insufficient. The Court found that the evidence admitted did not meet this threshold and was therefore unfairly prejudicial to the applicant.

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

Orders