Johnson v The Queen - [2011] HCATrans 213

[2011] HCATrans 213

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S65 of 2011

B e t w e e n -
PETER JAMES JOHNSON
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

FRENCH CJ
KIEFEL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 12 AUGUST 2011, AT 11.28 AM

MR G. O’L. REYNOLDS, SC: May it please the Court, I appear for the applicant with my learned friend, MR P.D. LANGE. (instructed by Matouk Joyners Lawyers)

MR L.A. BABB, SC: May it please the Court, I appear for the respondent. (instructed by Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW))

FRENCH CJ: Yes. Mr Reynolds.

MR REYNOLDS: Your Honours, before I start, I need an extension of time. I understand that is not opposed.

FRENCH CJ: Extension is granted.

MR REYNOLDS: Thank you, your Honour. Your Honour, this application relates to a document which was provided to the jury in a murder trial which was, in substance, a written submission by the Crown containing all the Crown’s arguments on the circumstantial evidence – this being a wholly circumstantial case – and referring to none of the accused’s arguments in relation to that circumstantial evidence. There are two points, two short points, which we submit warrant special leave. The first is, can such a written submission by the Crown ever be provided to a jury, and secondly, if it can, in what circumstances and subject to what restrictions? There is a decision ‑ ‑ ‑

FRENCH CJ: The trial judge sought to see that it was formulated in such a way that it would not constitute a submission. He specifically raised that question, did he not?

MR REYNOLDS: He did, but I will not bother to take your Honours to the text of it.

FRENCH CJ: Yes.

MR REYNOLDS: The effect of the whole of the document is that it is submissional, and ‑ ‑ ‑

KIEFEL J: The defence not only went along with this process, as I understand it, the submissions made – addresses made by the defence – were made by reference to the document.

MR REYNOLDS: Well, certainly there were submissions made on behalf of the accused orally, I cannot disagree with that proposition, but ultimately as this Court pointed out, if I can take your Honours to page 178 of the application book, at about line 10, this is a reference to the joint judgment of the Chief Justice and Justices Brennan and Deane in Butera v The DPP:

In every case, even when an accused consents to the admission of the document, the trial judge should bear in mind the overriding consideration of fairness to the accused and the risk involved in allowing the document to be taken into the jury room.

This was a document which, I submit, was on no view fair to the accused, and if I have to it is my unfortunate duty to submit…

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 Johnson 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: [2011] HCATrans 213
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Johnson against his conviction for murder. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain evidence during his trial, specifically statements made by the appellant to police.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge erred in admitting the appellant's statements to police, given the circumstances under which they were obtained. This involved determining whether the statements were voluntary and whether their admission would have been unfairly prejudicial to the appellant, thereby outweighing their probative value.

The Court analysed the principles governing the admissibility of confessional statements, particularly in light of potential inducements or oppression. It considered the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interviews, including the appellant's mental state and the conduct of the police officers. The Court affirmed that for a confession to be admissible, it must be voluntary and its probative value must not be outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The Court found that the trial judge had properly applied these principles in admitting the statements.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders