Jones v The Queen - [2008] HCATrans 337

[2008] HCATrans 337

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B24 of 2008

B e t w e e n -
CHRISTOPHER CLARK JONES
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

KIRBY J
HEYDON J
KIEFEL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM CANBERRA BY VIDEO LINK TO BRISBANE

ON TUESDAY, 30 SEPTEMBER 2008, AT 10.25 AM

MR M.J. BYRNE, QC: May the Court please, I appear with my friend, MR P.E. SMITH, for the applicant. (instructed by Ryan & Bosscher)

MR A.W. MOYNIHAN, SC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my friend, MR B.J. POWER, for the respondent. (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld))

KIRBY J: You have reduced your grounds of the application and the proposed ground of appeal to the single ground of miscarriage of justice. Is that correct?

MR BYRNE: With particulars, yes, that is so, your Honour.

KIRBY J: Yes. It is said in the very last paragraph of the respondent’s submissions that the co‑accused, Mr Roughan, was in fact retrialled and on his retrial was convicted. Is that an agreed fact?

MR BYRNE: It is, your Honour.

KIRBY J: So we do not face in this case, as it now presents itself, any possibility of a dischordancy between the outcome of Mr Roughan’s trial and the outcome of your client’s trial?

MR BYRNE: Again, that is correct, your Honour.

KIRBY J: Yes, thank you very much. At some stage I would be grateful if you would help me on the meaning or interpretation to be given to that secretly recorded conversation which is conveniently summarised on page 3 of the respondent’s submissions, page 158 of the application book. I am just not quite sure how one should interpret the assertions of Mr Roughan and the assertions of your client, given that your client does not ever get to the point of, as it were, specifically nailing Mr Roughan with having done the stabbing that allegedly caused the death. It is just a little hard to understand exactly what was being asserted there by them and perhaps if you can elaborate that a little bit I would be grateful because that is one piece of objective evidence of what they were both saying when they did not know that they were being recorded.

MR BYRNE: Your Honours, we can deal with that now. It is, as your Honour points out, not easy to interpret there, but overall when one looks at it, our submission would be that any statements by the present applicant are, at best, equivocal. He does not at any time admit being involved in the killing and Mr Roughan does not distinctly deny it. There is a flavour, and we use that term advisedly, that he has – that is the present applicant – been brought into it, roped into it, which again we would say is, in the full context of…

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 Jones 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: [2008] HCATrans 337
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jones appealed to the High Court of Australia against his conviction for armed robbery. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained through a covert recording of a conversation between Jones and a prison informant. Jones argued that the recording was obtained in contravention of his rights and should have been excluded by the trial judge.

The High Court was required to determine whether the admission of the covertly recorded evidence was an error that rendered the trial unfair. Specifically, the court considered the application of the exclusionary rule, which permits the exclusion of improperly obtained evidence, and the principles governing the admission of such evidence in criminal proceedings. The court also had to assess whether the evidence, even if improperly obtained, was of such probative value that its admission was justified in the interests of justice.

The majority of the High Court held that while the recording may have been obtained in circumstances that raised concerns about privacy, it did not necessarily render the trial unfair. The court applied the principle that evidence obtained improperly may still be admitted if its probative value outweighs any prejudice to the accused. In this instance, the court found that the evidence was highly relevant to the charge of armed robbery and that the jury had been adequately warned about the circumstances of its acquisition. Therefore, the admission of the evidence did not constitute a miscarriage of justice.

Orders