Jones v The Queen; Webster v The Queen - [1993] HCATrans 18

...

~

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA	•
Office of the Registry

Sydney No Sl04 of 1992
B e t w e e n -
LESLIE WILLIAM JONES

Applicant

and
THE QUEEN

Respondent

Office of the Registry

Sydney No Sl05 of 1992
B e t w e e n -
RAYMOND FREDERICK WEBSTER

Applicant

and
THE QUEEN

Jones.L

11/2/93

Respondent

Applications for special leave
to appeal

BRENNAN J
DEANE J

McHUGH J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON THURSDAY, 11 FEBRUARY 1993, AT 9.30 AM

MR P.J.HIDDEN, QC:

May it please the Court, I appear with

my learned friend, MR S.J. ODGERS, for the
applicant, Jones. (instructed by Horowitz &
Bilinsky)

MR R.O. BLANCH, QC:

May it please the Court, I appear with

my learned friend, MR T.R. HOYLE, for the Crown.
(instructed by S.E. O'Connor, Solicitor for Public
Prosecutions (New South Wales))

MR R.C. BROADHEAD:

May it please the Court, I appear for

the applicant, Webster. (instructed by Caldecott &
Williams)

BRENNAN J: Yes, Mr Hidden?

MR HIDDEN:

If the Court pleases. Your Honours, this is an

application for special leave to appeal from a
decision of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, dismissing the applicant's appeal against
his conviction on a charge of, in effect,

conspiracy to bribe. Your Honours, the evidence
against the applicant, and indeed against the
co-applicant Webster, consisted entirely of
intercepted telephone conversations, and they are
set out, or at least the relevant parts are set out,
verbatim, Your Honours, in the summing up
commencing at page 20 of the application book.
It may be necessary to take Your Honours to

some of the detail of that evidence. The Court of
Criminal Appeal itself summarized the effect of the
conversations, to some extent, we would
respectfully submit, wrongly in the application

book at pages 55 to 57. May we take it that
Your Honours have some familiarity with the
evidentiary material.

BRENNAN J: Yes, the appeal book has been read.

MR HIDDEN: Yes, thank you, Your Honours. Your Honours, the

charge was that this applicant, the co-applicant
Webster and a man called Hakim conspired to pay to
Webster, and that Webster should receive corruptly,
moneys to induce him to deflect him, in effect,
from the discharge of the duties of his office.
Now, Your Honours, the major problem which was

agitated in the appeal related to the learned trial
judge's directions on law as to the elements of the
offence, together with the question of whether
there was evidence to go to the jury and if so,
whether the verdict could be said to be unsafe and

unsatisfactory. And really the whole argument
turned upon what inferences could properly be drawn
from the intercepted telephone conversations.

Jones.L

11/2/93

If I could say this in a preliminary way,

Your Honours, our primary submission is, as it was
in the Court of Criminal Appeal, that from the
intercepted telephone conversations no inference
can…

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; Webster 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: [1993] HCATrans 18
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Raymond Frederick Webster and another applicant, Jones, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. The applicants had been convicted of conspiracy to bribe, with the prosecution's case relying entirely on intercepted telephone conversations. The Court of Criminal Appeal had dismissed their appeals against conviction.

The central legal issues before the High Court concerned the sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions, particularly whether inferences of guilt could be properly drawn from the intercepted conversations. This involved questions as to the elements of the conspiracy to bribe offence and whether the trial judge's directions on these elements were adequate. The applicants also argued that the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory, contending that the intercepted conversations only suggested possibilities rather than establishing guilt with any certainty.

The applicants' primary submission was that the intercepted telephone conversations did not permit any confident inference of conspiracy to bribe. They argued that any secrecy or guarded language in the conversations could be explained by reasons other than corrupt intent, such as payments made to prevent illegal actions by a police officer. The Court considered whether payments made in secrecy to a police officer, even if guarded in tone, necessarily indicated bribery, or if alternative explanations were reasonably available.

Orders