Hettrick v The Queen - [2010] HCATrans 301

[2010] HCATrans 301

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B31 of 2010

B e t w e e n -
WAYNE LEONARD HETTRICK
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

CRENNAN J
KIEFEL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM CANBERRA BY VIDEO LINK TO BRISBANE

ON FRIDAY, 12 NOVEMBER 2010, AT 12.52 PM

MR A.J. KIMMINS: If it please the Court, I appear for the applicant. (instructed by Ryan & Bosscher House)

MR A.W. MOYNIHAN, SC: If it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR B.J. POWER, for the respondent. (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld))

CRENNAN J: We note you need an extension of time.

MR KIMMINS: Yes.

CRENNAN J: Is there any opposition to that?

MR MOYNIHAN: No, your Honours.

CRENNAN J: Yes, thank you, Mr Moynihan. Yes.

MR KIMMINS: Thank you, your Honour. The next point is that the only oral submissions that I intend to make are in relation to the question of the differential verdicts and the authorities relevant thereto. The Court would be aware that the only two counts that this particular application refers to were count 9 on the indictment and also the circumstance of aggravation of rape in relation to count 1 on the indictment.

CRENNAN J: Yes.

MR KIMMINS: So far as the Court of Appeal’s approach to ‑ ‑ ‑

CRENNAN J: Just before you go on, in relation to your draft notice of appeal, which is to be found at application book 77, are grounds 1 and 3 combined, pretty much cover the same territory?

MR KIMMINS: Yes, your Honour. They do, your Honour.

CRENNAN J: Yes, thank you.

MR KIMMINS: I was going to take the Court to application book 62 where the Court of Appeal in paragraph 62 where the Court of Appeal in paragraph [22](a) and (c) primarily outlined the appellant’s arguments in relation to the point that I seek to ventilate at this stage. It is to be noted in [22](c) when outlining the appellant’s argument, the court noted the italicised words to the extent that the verdict on count 9 was “an affront to logic and common sense” and then quoted from MacKenzie v The Queen.

CRENNAN J: Yes, but then I think in paragraph [28] on the next page that is where the point is dealt with in terms of the conclusions reached.

MR KIMMINS: That is correct, your Honour. It is to that that I wish to direct the Court’s attention. Prior to doing that, what I briefly wished to touch upon was that during the course of the appeal the court was taken to comments by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal in the matter of TK which is referred to in our notice of appeal. We suggest that Justice Simpson in the main judgment in that particular case has really taken the authorities of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hettrick v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] HCATrans 301
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Hettrick v The Queen*, the appellant, Hettrick, 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 investigation and the proper application of the law relating to self-defence.

The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence that was obtained in circumstances that may have infringed the appellant's rights. Further, the Court had to consider whether the jury directions on the issue of self-defence were adequate and whether the conviction was unsafe or unsatisfactory in light of the evidence presented.

The Court reasoned that the admission of the evidence was not an error, as the trial judge had properly considered the circumstances of its acquisition and concluded it was admissible. Regarding self-defence, the High Court affirmed that the jury directions, when considered as a whole, correctly conveyed the relevant legal principles to the jury, including the onus of proof and the subjective and objective elements of self-defence. The Court found no basis to conclude that the verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory.

Orders