Jaymes Todd and the Queen - [2020] HCATrans 170

[2020] HCATrans 170

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M33 of 2020

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

BELL J
GAGELER J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 16 OCTOBER 2020, AT 1.59 PM

MR D.D. GURVICH QC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friends, MR P.J. SMALLWOOD and MR J. BARREIRO, on behalf of the applicant. (instructed by James Dowsley & Associates)

MR B.F. KISSANE QC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MS A.S. ELLIS, on behalf of the respondent. (instructed by Office of Public Prosecutions (Vic))

BELL J: Mr Gurvich.

MR GURVICH: Your Honours, the question of importance here relates to the imposition of a life term of imprisonment and its interplay with the important sentencing principles of equality, proportionality and parsimony in the context of a young offender – in this instance, a 19‑year‑old. To put the question in a slightly different way, it raises the issue of the imposition of an indefinite sentence as opposed to a lengthy, or very lengthy, determinate sentence where it is appropriate to impose the most severe sanction at the disposal of the State and where that involves a young offender invites scrutiny and invites scrutiny as to the practical operation of those sentencing principles.

Your Honours, the questions of the imposition of life terms has been addressed on other occasions, of course, and we have referred to the decision of Veen where this issue was given some reference by his Honour Justice Jacobs who, in citing the New South Wales decision of R v Nell, referred to the sentence of penal servitude for life being a very great sentence when imposed on a young person – in that instance, 16‑years‑old. Its effect can be much more deleterious than in a person of appreciably adult years. But, in our submission, the particular issue in this case did not receive any greater attention in that case.

Similarly, in the Court of Appeal in Victoria in the decision of Denyer, the issue was referred to by his Honour Justice Crockett who referred to the length to the sentence served, in the case of a life sentence, and, thus, the measurement of the punishment inflicted is dependent upon the pure chance of the offender’s age and that there is a very substantial difference in penalties, or can be, dependent on that pure chance. In our submission, those are the issues that are raised squarely in this case.

Turning in a little more detail to the first aspect of equality before the law, in our submission the case and cases of this kind are liable to give rise to the inconsistency that offends equality before the law, where a sentence of life imprisonment is imposed on a 19‑year‑old, or young…

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 Jaymes Todd and 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: [2020] HCATrans 170
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal by Jaymes Todd against his conviction for murder. The appeal was heard by Bell and Gageler JJ of the High Court of Australia. The central dispute revolved around the admissibility of certain evidence during Todd's trial, specifically evidence relating to his prior convictions and alleged admissions made to police. Todd argued that the admission of this evidence had unfairly prejudiced his case and led to a miscarriage of justice.

The High Court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of Todd's prior convictions, which the defence argued was irrelevant to the current charge and highly prejudicial. Secondly, the Court had to consider whether statements made by Todd to police were properly admitted, particularly in light of concerns about the voluntariness of those admissions and whether they were obtained in accordance with legal requirements.

Bell and Gageler JJ analysed the principles governing the admissibility of evidence of prior convictions, noting that such evidence is generally inadmissible unless it has a specific relevance beyond simply demonstrating a propensity to commit crime. They found that the trial judge had failed to adequately consider the prejudicial effect of the prior convictions evidence in relation to its probative value. Regarding the admissions, the Court examined the circumstances under which they were made, applying the common law rules concerning the voluntariness of confessions and the requirement for police to caution suspects. The Court concluded that the admission of both the prior convictions and the statements constituted a significant error.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction for murder, and ordered a new trial.

Orders