Forrest v The Queen - [1989] HCATrans 176

~ ~

'; ... ~

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Adelaide No A37 of 1988
B e t w e e n -
GORDON RONALD FORREST

Applicant

and
THE QUEEN

Respondent

Application for special
leave to appeal

MASON CJ
BRENNAN J
DEANE J
DAWSON J

Forrest

GAUDRON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT ADELAIDE ON

:,J.ONDA Y, 2 J. AUGUST 198 9, AT 11 . 31 AM

AlT4/l/HS	1	21/8/89
MR	S.W. TILMOUTH:	May it please the Court, I appear mv

learned friend, MR C. KOURAKIS, for th applicant.
(instructed by Zacharoy,annis Luppino & Eckermann)

MR J.J. DOYLE, QC:

If the Court pleases, I appear with

mv learned frien<l, MRS.A. MILLSTEAD, for

the respondent. (instructed by Crown Solicitor
for South Australia)

MASON CJ:

Yes, Mr Tilmouth.

MR TILMOUTH:

May it please Your Honours, I hand up the written

outline and I also hand up a one page chronology of
maior events.

MASON CJ:

Thank you.

Mr Tilmouth, which of these points

are special leave points?

MR TILMOUTH:

We submit the SERVICE AND EXECUTION OF PROCESS

ACT point is a special leave point. To a lesser extent
we acknowledge that the questioning of Alexander,
or the cross-examination, is really a trial matter,
but the single issue, we would submit, on that is
that it is for police officers to heed what the courts
say in relation to matters of procedure and, in our
submission, there is in that point the semblance of a
special leave point, but the main one is the first
one I have iust mentioned.

MASON CJ:

Yes.

Would you proceed to the first of those

points.

MR TILMOUTH:

If the Court pleases.

Your Honours, as a

preliminary matter, may I mention that section 78B
JUDICIARY ACT notices were served, there are no
interveners and my instructing solicitor and my junior
counsel have filed an affidavit to that effect in the Court Registry. Your Honours, the Crown case

was dependent upon a confession which was allegedly on the armed robberies in this matter substantially
made. by the applicant. That confession appears at
page 147 and the 11 pages which follow in the appeal

book. Now, Your Honours, before making one or two
submissions about that document on its face, could I
simply summarize the chronology and remind Your Honours

of this background. Number 3 on the chronologv
shows that there was an arrest at 4 am, the apolicant
was in custody - that is on the Sunday morning - for
the whole of the Sundav, as appears in the following

numbers on the chronology. He had been before an
out-of-court sessions hearing· before a iustice of
the peace which apparently in Victoria is simplv an
appearance at the watchhouse window, where he was
remanded to the following morning, which is the Monday,
of course.
On the Monday morning after warrants were endorsed and

served on him, point number 11, there was a remand in

AlT4/2/HS	2
Forrest

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 Forrest v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Forrest v The Queen [1989] HCATrans 176
Case: [1989] HCATrans 176
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerns an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia by Gordon Ronald Forrest against The Queen. The dispute centres on the admissibility of a confession allegedly made by Forrest, which formed a substantial part of the Crown's case in armed robbery charges. Forrest contends that the confession was obtained during a period of unlawful custody, arguing that the remand order under which he was held for questioning was invalid.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the Service and Execution of Process Act (Cth) rendered invalid a Victorian court order remanding Forrest in custody for the purpose of questioning. Forrest argued that this remand was not authorised by the Commonwealth Act and was therefore illegal, rendering any subsequent confession inadmissible. A secondary issue, acknowledged as less significant for special leave, concerned the cross-examination of a witness named Alexander, with submissions focusing on police adherence to procedural requirements.

The applicant's argument was that the Victorian remand order, purportedly made under State provisions, was inconsistent with and invalid under the Commonwealth Service and Execution of Process Act. It was submitted that the Act did not permit remands in custody solely for the purpose of questioning, and that any such order was a nullity. The court was asked to consider whether the exercise of power under State provisions, in a manner allegedly conflicting with Commonwealth law, could be considered valid.

Orders