Jones v The Queen - [1989] HCATrans 8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Hobart No H8 of 1988
B e t w e e n -
RODNEY ALBERT JONES
Applicant

and
THE QUEEN
Respondent

Application for special
leave to appeal

MASON CJ
BRENNAN J
DEANE J
DAWSON J

Jones
MR.H.J. KABLE:	May it please the Court, I appear with

TOOHEY J ~
l

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 8 FEBRUARY 1989, AT 10.22 AM:

C2T 2/1/MB

8/2/89

my learned friend, MR S.J.D. KNIGHT, for the
applicant. (instructed by Dobson Mitchell and
Allport)

MR D.J. BUGG:

May it please the Court, I appear with my

learned friend, MR A.G. MELICK, for the respondent.
(instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions)

MASON CJ:	Mr Kable.
MR KABLE:	May it please the Court, I have the appropriate number of copies of an outline of submissions for the Court and for my friend.

MASON CJ:

Thank you.

Mr Kable, when the Court of Criminal

Appeal delivered judgment was it pointed out to
the court that it had failed to resolve the
arguments presented by the appellant which, if
accepted, would have resulted in directing a
verdict of acquittal?

MR KABLE:	No, Your Honour,it was not.
MASON CJ:	Well, why was not the point raised?

MR KABLE:	Your Honour, I was not present at that time. happened with the case, to outline the chronology,	What
was that the court had been asked to adjudicate
upon the matter as early as possible. After two days of the hearing of the appeal in September

the court adjourned the appeal to a date in October,
being a date when the appeals are not normally
determined in Tasmania. It was necessary for
there to be a change of counsel; counsel changed;
other counsel argued the matter on the resumed

hearing; that counsel took judgment. I am not in
a position to point out to the Court why there
was no reference made to the court as to that
matter.

the1 argument of the court where the court was ! There are certainly many references throughout
asked to adjudicate on the grounds that are
referred to in the submissions and in particular
where the court was urged to make an ultimate

order which was an acquittal. As I understand
it the Crown in this matter will suggest that
counsel who had carriage of the matter on the
resumed hearing encouraged - is the word as I
understand it from discussions with the Director
of Public Prosecutions - the court to resolve
the matter on what I might describe as the HOCH
ground.

C2T2/2/MB	2	8/2/89
Jones

MR KABLE (continuing):

I have extracted a number of

pages of transcript of argument before the
Court of Criminal Appeal where the court
was specifically asked to substitute an
acquittal in consequence of two findings
that the court was urged to make, the first
of which was that the disputed evidence was
not admissible as similar fact…

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 Jones v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Jones v The Queen [1989] HCATrans 8
Case: [1989] HCATrans 8
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerns an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia by Mr H.J. Jones, the applicant, against the respondent, The Queen. The dispute centres on the applicant's contention that the Court of Criminal Appeal failed to resolve crucial arguments presented during his appeal, which, if accepted, would have led to a directed verdict of acquittal.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the Court of Criminal Appeal had adequately discharged its responsibility to adjudicate upon the arguments put forward by the appellant. Specifically, the applicant argued that the Court of Criminal Appeal was urged to make findings that the disputed evidence was inadmissible as similar fact evidence, and that even if admissible, it did not constitute corroboration, thereby necessitating an acquittal.

The applicant's counsel submitted that the Court of Criminal Appeal was repeatedly asked to make adjudications that would result in an acquittal. He explained that while he was not present at the time of the original hearing, the case involved a change of counsel and a resumed hearing. Counsel for the applicant argued that the Court of Criminal Appeal had made an order without addressing these specific arguments, and that the only recourse was an application to the High Court, drawing parallels to cases such as *Fowler* and *King*. The Chief Justice noted that the initial remedy should have been an application to the Court of Criminal Appeal itself to address the alleged oversight.

Orders