Legal Research
Cases
Flowers v The Queen

Flowers v The Queen

Case [2005] NTCCA 5 13 May 2005

Type to search within this case.

Flowers v The Queen [2005] NTCCA 5
PARTIES:FLOWERS, Nicholas Joseph

v
THE QUEEN

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:CA 13 of 2003 (20207164)
DELIVERED:  13 May 2005
HEARING DATES:  9 February 2005
JUDGMENT OF:  MARTIN (BR) CJ, RILEY AND SOUTHWOOD JJ
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW
Appeal – appeal to Court of Criminal Application for leave to appeal following refusal of leave by a single Judge – appeal against conviction – police conversation – denial of knowledge of complainant – appellant intoxicated at time of police conversation – record of interview when appellant sober – appellant acknowledged identity of complainant – exculpatory interview – Crown declined to lead exculpatory interview at trial – admissibility of exculpatory interview - application for leave refused.
EVIDENCE
Admissibility of prior inconsistent statement of accused – spontaneous or considered response – part of the exculpatory version of events not admissible at behest of the applicant.

EVIDENCE
Admissibility – hearsay – statements – self-serving – admissibility in criminal proceedings – criminal law – failure to object – fair trial.
Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593; Kelly v The Queen (2003) 205 ALR 274, applied.
R v Callaghan [1994] 2 Qd R 300, approved.
S (2002) 132 A Crim R 326; Assafiri v Horne [2004] WASCA 40 at 59; Middleton v R (1998) 19 WAR 179, considered.
Higgins (1829) 3 C & P 603 at 604, followed.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:M Johnson pro bono
Respondent:  M Carey
Solicitors:
Appellant:M Johnson pro bono
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    A
Judgment ID Number:  Mar0507
Number of pages:  36

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Flowers v The Queen [2005] NTCCA 5

No. CA 13 of 2003 (20207164)
BETWEEN:

NICHOLAS JOSEPH FLOWERS

Appellant

AND:

THE QUEEN

Respondent

CORAM: MARTIN (BR) CJ, RILEY AND SOUTHWOOD JJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 13 May 2005)
Martin (BR) CJ:

The applicant applies for leave to appeal against convictions recorded by a jury following refusal of leave by a single Judge. The facts are set out in the judgment of Riley J. Subject to the following remarks, I agree with his Honour’s reasons for refusing leave.
At about 9am on the day following the events in question, police attended at the block of flats where the events had occurred and spoke with the applicant. The following conversation occurred:
“Q. What is your name?
A.What for?
Q.Are you Nicholas Flowers?
A.Yes I am.
Q.Nicholas, we are investigating a sexual assault upon a young girl, a 12 year old girl, and we want to talk to you about that matter.
A.I don’t even know that little girl.
Q.I’m arresting you for that assault. I’d like you to accompany us back to the Berrimah Police Centre.”
The interviewing officer gave evidence that the applicant was intoxicated when the conversation occurred. A little…

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 Flowers v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Flowers v The Queen [2005] NTCCA 5
Case: [2005] NTCCA 5
Decision Date: 13 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Flowers, sought leave to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal against his conviction. The appeal concerned the admissibility of an interview conducted by police with the applicant.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit into evidence an exculpatory interview conducted by police with the applicant. This interview occurred when the applicant was sober and acknowledged the identity of the complainant, despite the applicant having been intoxicated during an earlier conversation with police where he denied such knowledge. The Crown had declined to lead this exculpatory interview at trial.

The Court considered the principles governing the admissibility of evidence, particularly in the context of admissions and confessions. It noted that while an accused is generally entitled to have exculpatory statements made to police admitted, this right is not absolute and is subject to the rules of evidence, including those concerning relevance and prejudice. The Court found that the trial judge had not erred in refusing to admit the interview, as the applicant's denial of knowledge when intoxicated was not directly contradicted by the later exculpatory interview, and the Crown was not obliged to lead evidence that might be unhelpful to its case.

The application for leave to appeal was refused.

Orders