Heron v The Queen - [2002] HCATrans 383

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S30 of 2001

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

GLEESON CJ
McHUGH J
KIRBY J
HAYNE J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 9 OCTOBER 2002, AT 11.22 AM

MR T.A. GAME, SC: If the Court pleases, I appear for the applicant with my learned friend, MR D. JORDAN. (instructed by the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales)

MR R.D. ELLIS: If the Court pleases, I appear for the respondent Crown with my learned friend, MR G.E. SMITH. (instructed by S.E. O’Connor, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (New South Wales))

GLEESON CJ: Yes, Mr Game.

MR GAME: If the Court pleases, on 15 March 2002, in a special leave Bench comprising your Honour the Chief Justice and Justice Callinan dismissed one proposed ground of appeal and referred the second ground to the Full Court to be argued as a special leave application, but to be argued in full. Now, that ground concerns the issue whether or not, in effect, the trial miscarried by reason of the erroneous directions given by the trial judge on the question of provocation.

KIRBY J: He did not get much help from your end of the table, did he, at trial?

MR GAME: No, he did not, your Honour.

KIRBY J: He did not get any.

MR GAME: Well, your Honour, the help he got was that he was asked by defence counsel for directions on provocation, and the point we would make about that is that, having asked for directions, it is hardly likely that counsel would acquiesce, as it were, knowledgably, in erroneous directions being given. The second point we would make ‑ ‑ ‑

KIRBY J: Well, he did not say anything.

MR GAME: He did not say anything. No, that is quite true, your Honour, but ‑ ‑ ‑

KIRBY J: How long did this trial last?

McHUGH J: Twenty‑three days.

KIRBY J: Twenty‑three days. Would you agree that the real issue at trial was whether or not your client had a knife and used it on the deceased? Was that not the real question that was tendered to the jury for its decision?

MR GAME: Yes, your Honour, that was the real issue. There was evidence of loss of self‑control. The question was whether or not there was evidence of provocation, supporting loss of self‑control. The Crown itself sought, as it were, to make a case of loss of self‑control in establishing that the applicant stabbed the deceased. I should say that – it may or may not strengthen my position on this special leave application – but, ultimately, the applicant’s position on the question whether or not he stabbed the deceased was a very weak one. The deceased was undoubtedly stabbed; the fight was undoubtedly with the applicant.…

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 Heron v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Heron v The Queen [2002] HCATrans 383
Case: [2002] HCATrans 383
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Heron appealed to the High Court of Australia against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained from the appellant, specifically statements made by him to police and a confession. The High Court was required to determine whether these statements and confession were improperly obtained, thereby rendering them inadmissible under the common law, and if so, whether their admission had occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

The legal issues before the Court revolved around the application of the common law exclusionary rule concerning improperly or illegally obtained evidence. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the police conduct in obtaining the statements and confession was such that it ought to have been excluded in the interests of preventing unfairness to the appellant, notwithstanding its potential relevance to the prosecution's case. This involved an assessment of the voluntariness of the confession and the overall fairness of the police questioning process.

The High Court ultimately held that the statements and confession were improperly obtained. The majority reasoned that the police had engaged in conduct that was oppressive and unfair, leading to the involuntary nature of the confession. They applied the principle that evidence obtained in circumstances that render it unfair to the accused should be excluded, even if it is relevant. Consequently, the Court found that the admission of this evidence at trial had occasioned a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was allowed, the conviction was quashed, and a new trial was ordered.

Orders