GBF v The Queen - [2020] HCATrans 47

[2020] HCATrans 047

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B74 of 2019

B e t w e e n -
GBF
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent

GAGELER J
KEANE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 15 APRIL 2020, AT 9.30 AM

HIS HONOUR: In this application Justice Keane and I order that compliance with the time limit provided for in rule 41.02.1 be dispensed with and that special leave to appeal is granted. The parties will be contacted about estimates of time for the hearing of the matter. The parties will also be made aware of the directions necessary for undertaking the appeal.

AT 9.30 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

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 GBF v The Queen

Details

AGLC: GBF v The Queen [2020] HCATrans 47
Case: [2020] HCATrans 47
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by GBF against a conviction for an offence. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence during GBF's trial.

The High Court was required to determine whether the evidence in question, which was obtained following a search of GBF's property, was unlawfully obtained and, if so, whether it should have been excluded from admission at trial under section 138 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW). This involved considering the proper application of the discretion to exclude improperly or illegally obtained evidence.

The Court reasoned that the search of GBF's property was conducted without a warrant and without lawful authority. Consequently, the evidence obtained from that search was improperly obtained. Applying section 138 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW), the Court held that the desirability of admitting the evidence was outweighed by the undesirability of admitting evidence that had been improperly obtained. The Court found that the admission of the evidence would have had a significant adverse effect on the integrity of the judicial process.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for a retrial.

Orders