Freeman-Quay v The Queen - [2016] HCATrans 236

[2016] HCATrans 236

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
No C12 of 2016

B e t w e e n -
LEVI FREEMAN‑QUAY
Plaintiff
and
THE QUEEN
Defendant
Application for bail

GAGELER J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 11 OCTOBER 2016, AT 9.28 AM

HIS HONOUR: In the early hours of the morning of 21 September 2013, Mr Levi Freeman‑Quay, who I will call “the applicant”, was part of a group involved in an altercation in Canberra City with another group which included Mr Matthew Pridham, Mr Ray Reynolds and Mr Ronnie Burt. The applicant was subsequently charged with offences which included: causing grievous bodily harm to Mr Pridham; assault occasioning actual bodily harm to Mr Reynolds; and assaulting Mr Burt.

The applicant pleaded guilty to the second of those offences. He was found guilty of the first and third of them after a trial in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory before Murrell CJ sitting without a jury.

On 4 September 2015, Murrell CJ convicted and sentenced the applicant. For the offence of causing grievous bodily harm to Mr Pridham, she sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment from 4 November 2015 to be served by way of full‑time imprisonment until 3 June 2016. For the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm to Mr Reynolds, she sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment to be served by full‑time imprisonment from 4 September 2015 until 3 March 2016. For the offence of assaulting Mr Burt, she imposed a fine.

In the reasons she then gave for imposing those sentences, Murrell CJ characterised the offences as having occurred during “an episode of aggression (albeit an episode of relatively brief duration)” in which the assault occasioning actual bodily harm to Mr Reynolds was not “one isolated punch” but rather “the third of three aggressive acts by the offender”.

The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory from his conviction for the offence of causing grievous bodily harm to Mr Pridham and from his sentence for the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm to Mr Reynolds.

On 24 November 2015, the applicant was granted bail pending the appeal. He had until that time served two months and 21 days of full‑time imprisonment.

The applicant’s Notice of Appeal, as ultimately amended on 24 November 2015, identified the sole ground for his appeal against sentence as that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The Notice of Appeal included amongst the orders sought that he be re‑sentenced in respect of the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm to Mr Reynolds.

In written submissions to the Court of Appeal, counsel for the applicant said:

“Finally, it is noted that the sentence appeal only relates to an adjustment of the sentences if the conviction appeal is upheld. If the conviction appeal is dismissed the sentence appeal will not be pressed separately.”
The Court…

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 Freeman-Quay v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Freeman-Quay v The Queen [2016] HCATrans 236
Case: [2016] HCATrans 236
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Freeman-Quay appealed to the High Court of Australia against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained during a police interview and the subsequent application of the *Criminal Code Act 1899* (Qld) in relation to the appellant's mental state at the time of the offence.

The High Court was required to determine whether the evidence obtained from the appellant during the police interview was unlawfully obtained, thereby rendering it inadmissible under section 138 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth) (which applied in Queensland). Further, the Court had to consider whether the appellant's mental impairment, as contemplated by the *Criminal Code Act 1899* (Qld), was such as to negate his criminal responsibility for the offence of murder.

Gageler J, delivering the judgment of the Court, found that the evidence obtained during the interview was not unlawfully obtained, as the police had acted within their lawful powers. Regarding the mental impairment, his Honour applied the principles established in *R v Porter* and *R v Parsons*, which require a causal connection between the mental impairment and the act or omission constituting the offence. His Honour concluded that the appellant's mental impairment did not operate in such a way as to negate his criminal responsibility for murder.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders