Edwards v The Queen - [2020] HCATrans 216

[2020] HCATrans 216

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S118 of 2020

B e t w e e n -
SCOTT EDWARDS
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

GAGELER J
EDELMAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 8 DECEMBER 2020, AT 2.00 PM

GAGELER J: I note the appearances.

MR J.M. MORRIS, SC appears with MR T.M. OWER for the applicant. (instructed by Cardillo Gray Partners)

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

GAGELER J: Yes, Mr Morris.

MR MORRIS: Yes, thank you, your Honours. In this case, the Court of Criminal Appeal proceeded on the basis that the disclosure of the fact of a Cellebrite mobile telephone download was a sufficient disclosure of the – to use the words in the section – information document or thing contained within the download for the purpose of section 15 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act and also for sections 141 and 142 of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is in this respect, your Honours, that we submit that the conclusion was wrong.

GAGELER J: What do you say should have been disclosed?

MR MORRIS: What we say should have been disclosed was an electronic record of the Cellebrite download.

EDELMAN J: What you really mean is produced, do you not?

MR MORRIS: Produced, yes – to produce.

EDELMAN J: In 142, the words “to contain” are not just disclosure of the existence of, but also production of.

MR MORRIS: That is right, and production to the accused or the accused’s representative.

GAGELER J: Like a USB stick?

MR MORRIS: Yes, or a portable hard drive or something like that. For the Court of Appeal to say it is nearly 6,000 pages is not to the point given modern document conveyance systems that we have – even including Dropbox or something like that. But that would have ‑ ‑ ‑

GAGELER J: Are you suggesting that somebody should have gone through the electronic data and extracted any particular information?

MR MORRIS: No, we do not make that submission. I know that much was made of that by the court, that there was no obligation to interrogate I think were the words used. We do not say that at all except for this point. We submit that in the modern day, given the information likely to be stored on a mobile telephone which includes texts, emails, photographs and GPS information, in the ordinary course one would expect if there is a communication between relevant participants in the criminal process or in the offence, which there was in this case, ordinarily that would be produced.

EDELMAN J: The Cellebrite download in this case was easily searchable, was it not? So if it had been produced it could have easily been searched by parameters including the indictment period?

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 [2020] HCATrans 216
Case: [2020] HCATrans 216
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Mr. Edwards, against his conviction for the offence of 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 had erred in admitting evidence of the applicant's prior convictions, which were alleged to be relevant to the issue of his propensity to commit the offence charged. The court was required to determine the proper application of the rules of evidence, particularly concerning the admissibility of character evidence and its potential to prejudice the jury.

Gageler and Edelman JJ held that the admission of the prior convictions was an error. Their Honours reasoned that the evidence of prior convictions was not sufficiently probative of any issue in dispute at the trial to outweigh the significant risk of prejudice to the applicant. The court applied the principle that evidence of prior convictions is generally inadmissible to prove a propensity to commit the crime charged, and can only be admitted if it has a specific, independent relevance to a matter in issue, such as identity or system. In this instance, the prior convictions did not meet that threshold.

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

Orders