Criminal Law—Appeals—Grounds of appeal—Duty of court of criminal appeal to determine—Order allowing appeal by upholding some grounds, quashing conviction and directing new trial—No determination of grounds supporting acquittal.
Decisions
MASON C.J., BRENNAN, DAWSON AND TOOHEY JJ. The applicant was charged on indictment in the Supreme Court of Tasmania on five counts. After a trial before Neasey J. and a jury he was convicted on three of those counts, namely, unnatural carnal knowledge of his daughter A; common assault of A during the commission of the first-mentioned offence; and indecent assault of another daughter B. The trial on these and other counts in the indictment proceeded together over the objection of counsel for the applicant.
2. On appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal in Tasmania a number of grounds were argued. The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions and ordered a retrial. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal from that part of the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal which orders that the applicant be retried. This Court invited the parties to address themselves first to ground 14 of the applicant's proposed notice of appeal which raises a supposed failure on the part of the Court of Criminal Appeal to hear and determine grounds of appeal which were argued before it and which, if accepted, would have entitled the applicant to a verdict of acquittal to be entered pursuant to s.402(3) of the Criminal Code (Tas.).
3. A court of criminal appeal has jurisdiction to hear and determine all grounds of appeal which are raised and argued in support of an appeal by a convicted person who seeks an order quashing his conviction and entering a verdict of acquittal. As it is the duty of a court of criminal appeal to exercise its jurisdiction when that jurisdiction is invoked, the court must hear and determine each ground of appeal which is raised and argued unless the ground is plainly untenable or the party raising it succeeds on another ground. That is not to say that the reasons for judgment of a court of criminal appeal must deal extensively with every ground that is raised and argued. The cogency of the argument and the state of current authority affect the content of the reasons which should be assigned by the court for the order it makes. But the court cannot fail to hear and determine tenable grounds raised and argued in support of a verdict of acquittal merely because the court accepts other grounds of appeal which result in quashing the conviction and an order for retrial. A court of criminal appeal which confines its judgment in that way fails to exercise fully its jurisdiction and the appeal remains partially undetermined. The order for retrial cannot be supported, for that order is not appropriate if the appellant is entitled to…
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
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Jones v The Queen [1989] HCA 16
Case
[1989] HCA 16
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Jones appealed his conviction for murder in the Supreme Court of New South Wales to the High Court of Australia. The central issue on appeal concerned the admissibility of a confession made by Jones to police. Jones argued that the confession was involuntary and therefore inadmissible, as it was obtained in circumstances that rendered it unreliable.
The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in admitting the confession into evidence. This involved considering whether the confession was made voluntarily, having regard to the totality of the circumstances in which it was obtained. The court had to assess whether any inducements or threats were made, or whether Jones' will was overborne by the conduct of the police.
The High Court held that the confession was admissible. The majority reasoned that while the circumstances of the interview were not ideal, they did not establish that the confession was involuntary. The court applied the established legal principles regarding the admissibility of confessions, emphasizing that a confession will be admitted unless it is shown to have been made involuntarily, meaning it was not the product of the free will of the accused. The court found that Jones had been cautioned and had not been subjected to undue pressure, and therefore his confession was a voluntary statement.