Huxley v The Queen - [2023] HCATrans 113

[2023] HCATrans 113

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B19 of 2023

B e t w e e n -
BRENT MALCOLM HUXLEY
Appellant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent

GAGELER J
GORDON J
STEWARD J
GLEESON J
JAGOT J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 7 SEPTEMBER 2023, AT 9.44 AM

MR A.M. HOARE: If it please the Court, I appear with my learned friends, MR S.G. MOON and MR N.J. EDRIDGE for the appellant. (instructed by Bressington & Partners Solicitors)

MR C.W. WALLIS: If the Court please, I appear with MS E.L. KELSO for the respondent. (instructed by Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld))

GAGELER J: We, of course, gentlemen, do have the names and initials. You do not necessarily need to announce your appearance in that form.

MR HOARE: I apologise. Should I be here again, I will not do so.

GAGELER J: We look forward to seeing you.

MR HOARE: If I can go to the heart of the matter, the Court has received the outline of the oral submissions. What is contended before on behalf of the appellant that the impugned direction which appears at the core appeal book, page 30, was directed generally to the effect of the witness Greer’s evidence.

GORDON J: Just so I am clear, that is between lines 22 to 26?

MR HOARE: Yes. Yes, thank you, Justice Gordon. It was a direction given in clear terms as to the use which the Jury could make of it. The use could only be made of that witnesses’ evidence if the high threshold were met. It is not limited or contextualised by the directions. In fact, that is made clear by the direction itself, where his Honour says:

consistent with the directions I will give you in relation to the case against Mr Rewha –

Then, I pass now to the practical effect of that direction in the context of this case.

GLEESON J: So, your argument is that that direction is not relevantly contextualised by the whole of the rest of the jury summing‑up.

MR HOARE: No, it is not, your Honour. And, to meet that question further, in the supplementary material filed by the applicant, the conclusion to the argument appears at page 17.

GORDON J: This is the supplementary book or the ‑ ‑ ‑

MR HOARE: It is the further supplementary book.

JAGOT J: What page was it, sorry?

MR HOARE: Can I perhaps – sorry, Justice Jagot, I will go to the nub of the issue, perhaps, rather than – but the page I will take the Court to is at page 21 of that supplementary material.

GORDON J: What is the – just so I understand what the purpose of taking us to this is for.

MR HOARE: That argument demonstrates his Honour’s actual purpose of the direction and his Honour’s consideration where his Honour says:

and it would…

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 Huxley v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Huxley v The Queen [2023] HCATrans 113
Case: [2023] HCATrans 113
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Huxley appealed to the High Court of Australia against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained by police during an investigation.

The High Court was required to determine whether the evidence, which included statements made by the appellant and items seized from his property, was obtained in contravention of the *Australian Consumer Law* (ACL) and, if so, whether it should have been excluded from use at trial under s 138 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW). A further issue was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting the evidence despite the potential contravention.

The Court reasoned that the ACL did not apply to the conduct of police officers in the course of a criminal investigation. Therefore, the evidence was not obtained in contravention of the ACL. Furthermore, the Court held that even if there had been a contravention of some other law, the trial judge had correctly exercised their discretion under s 138 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW) in admitting the evidence, as the probative value of the evidence outweighed any impropriety in its admission. The Court affirmed the principles governing the exercise of discretion under s 138, emphasising the need to balance the public interest in the admission of relevant evidence against the public interest in the observance of the law.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders