Jemielita v The Queen - [1994] HCATrans 51

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Perth No P34 of 1993

B e t w e e n -

ZYLVAIN STANLEY JEMIELITA

Applicant

and
THE QUEEN

Respondent

Order for costs

MASON CJ
BRENNAN J
DAWSON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 12 OCTOBER 1994, AT 10.30 AM

MASON CJ: Having considered the application for costs made by the respondent, Justices Brennan, Dawson and I have come to the conclusion there should be an order for costs in favour of the respondent. Accordingly, the application for special leave, which was refused on 31 May 1994, should be refused with costs.

AT 10.31 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

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 Jemielita 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: [1994] HCATrans 51
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Jemielita v The Queen* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia by the applicant, Jemielita, against his conviction for armed robbery. The applicant had been found guilty by a jury and sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in law by failing to direct the jury adequately on the issue of self-defence. Specifically, the applicant argued that the jury should have been instructed that if they entertained a reasonable doubt as to whether the applicant had acted in self-defence, they were bound to acquit him, even if they were not affirmatively convinced that he had acted in self-defence.

Brennan and Dawson JJ considered the principles governing the onus of proof in criminal matters, particularly in relation to defences. Their Honours affirmed that the onus rests on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They held that where a defence is raised, and there is evidence capable of supporting that defence, the jury must be directed that if they have a reasonable doubt about the existence of the defence, they must acquit the accused. This is because the prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defence did not exist.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

Orders