Huxley v The Queen - [2023] HCATrans 36

[2023] HCATrans 036

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B39 of 2022

B e t w e e n -
BRENT MALCOLM HUXLEY
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

GORDON J
JAGOT J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA BY VIDEO CONNECTION

ON FRIDAY, 17 MARCH 2023, AT 2.25 PM

GORDON J: In accordance with the Court’s protocol for remote hearings, I will announce the appearances for the parties.

MR A.M. HOARE appears with MR S.G. MOON and MR N.J. EDRIDGE for the applicant. (instructed by Bressington & Partners Solicitors)

MR C.W. WALLIS appears with MS E.L. KELSO for the respondent. (instructed by Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld))

GORDON J: Yes, Mr Hoare.

MR HOARE: Thank you. The two points which we will be discussing ‑ ‑ ‑

GORDON J: Just one matter, sorry. I noticed you need an extension of time, but I understand that is not opposed. Is that right?

MR HOARE: That is so.

GORDON J: Thank you.

MR HOARE: I make that application. The two points that will be the subject of oral argument are in respect of grounds 2 and 3. I do not seek to advance ground 1 in oral submissions. In respect of ground 2, and in response to the submission of the respondents, the evidence of Greer was, effectively, quarantined from the jury’s consideration to the detriment of a legitimate defence that was otherwise open on ‑ ‑ ‑

GORDON J: It seems as though we have some problems, Mr Hoare. Your image fell out and we have now lost the audio. I might just adjourn the Court for a short moment to see if we cannot drop the line and then reconnect.

Adjourn the Court, please.

AT 2.27 PM SHORT ADJOURNMENT

UPON RESUMING AT 2.31 PM:

GORDON J: Yes, Mr Hoare.

MR HOARE: Thank you. I apologise. I may not be able to distinguish who is asking me questions, should that occur, though I will endeavour to do my best to answer them.

GORDON J: Well, we will make sure that we identify who it is.

MR HOARE: Thank you, your Honour. Now, if I can come to ground 2, and this is in response to the submissions of the respondent, the evidence of the witness Greer by reason of the direction given by his Honour effectively quarantined from the jury’s consideration to the detriment of a legitimate defence that was otherwise open on the evidence.

That defence was, put in precise terms, that the fatal assault occurred at the unit at Kirwan and occurred in the absence of the applicant. Now, taking the directions so far as they relate to the witness Greer in combination, the reliability and truthfulness of the witness was the subject of specific direction to the benefit of the co-accused Rewha.

The direction is first found at application book 30, lines 19 to 26 in the…

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 36
Case: [2023] HCATrans 36
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on an application for special leave to appeal. The applicant, Huxley, sought to appeal against a decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal. The core of the dispute concerned the directions given by the trial judge to the jury regarding the evidence of a witness named Greer, and the potential impact of these directions on the applicant's defence.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the trial judge's directions concerning the reliability and truthfulness of Ms Greer's evidence, given for the benefit of a co-accused, effectively quarantined her testimony from the jury's consideration in a way that prejudiced the applicant's defence. Specifically, the applicant argued that Ms Greer's evidence, if accepted, could have supported a defence that the fatal assault occurred at a unit in Kirwan in the applicant's absence. A further issue raised was whether inconsistencies between the judgment in the applicant's case and that of a co-offender, Taylor, constituted an abuse of process by contravening the principle of incontrovertibility.

The applicant contended that the directions given regarding Ms Greer's evidence, particularly those requiring the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of her truthfulness and reliability before acting upon it, were primarily framed in the context of the case against the co-accused Rewha. The applicant argued that this effectively excluded evidence that could have supported his defence, such as his absence from the scene of the assault and the deceased being found prone and unmoving. The applicant also submitted that the Crown's contention at trial that the assault at the unit was not serious, when contrasted with other evidence and the verdict in Taylor's case, created an inconsistency that amounted to an abuse of process. The respondent, the Queen, argued that the trial judge's directions, when considered in their totality and in the context of a conjoined trial, were sufficient to ameliorate any perceived prejudice, and that the jury was properly directed on how to consider the evidence in relation to each accused.

The High Court granted special leave to appeal on grounds 2 and 3.

Orders