GLEESON CJ, GAUDRON, McHUGH, GUMMOW, KIRBY AND CALLINAN JJ
YOSHIO KATSUNO APPELLANT
AND
THE QUEEN RESPONDENT
Katsuno v The Queen [1999] HCA 50 30 September 1999 M88/1998
ORDER
Appeal dismissed.
On appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria
Representation:
D Grace QC with O P Holdenson QC and M K Moshinsky for the appellant (instructed by Hale & Wakeling)
A J Howard QC with N T Robinson and R T Barry for the respondent (instructed by Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions)
Interveners:
D M J Bennett QC, Solicitor-General for the Commonwealth with M J Crennan intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)
D Graham QC, Solicitor-General for the State of Victoria with P M Tate intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General of the State of Victoria (instructed by Victorian Government Solicitor)
2.
R J Meadows QC, Solicitor-General for the State of Western Australia with C F Jenkins intervening on behalf of the Attorneys-General of the States of Western Australia and South Australia (instructed by Crown Solicitors for Western Australia and South Australia)
M G Sexton SC, Solicitor-General for the State of New South Wales with K M Guilfoyle intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General of the State of New South Wales (instructed by Crown Solicitor for New South Wales)
Notice: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
CATCHWORDS
Katsuno v The Queen
Criminal law – Juries – Practice in Victoria of provision of conviction and other information concerning potential jurors to Director of Public Prosecutions by police – Information used to exercise challenge – Whether practice prohibited by Juries Act 1967 (Vic) – Consequences of invalidation of practice – Whether prohibition of practice relates to the constitution and authority of the jury and to the trial process in a fundamental respect – Whether breach constituted a fundamental failure to observe requirements of the criminal process.
Criminal law – Juries – Nature of and entitlement to peremptory challenge – Relevance of reasons for exercise.
Criminal law – Constitutional requirement of trial by jury – Representative nature of the jury.
Jury – Commonwealth offence – Trial in State court – Provision of information by police to prosecutor – Information used to exercise challenge – Whether practice prohibited – Whether breach constituted a fundamental failure to observe requirements of the criminal trial.
Words and phrases – "constitution and authority of the jury".
GLEESON CJ. The material facts of the case are set out in the judgments of Gaudron, Gummow and Callinan JJ and Kirby J. There are two principal issues to be decided. The first is whether the facts disclose a contravention of the Juries Act 1967 (Vic) ("the Act"). The second concerns the effect of any such contravention upon the conviction of the appellant.
As to the first issue, I…
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 Katsuno v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Katsuno v The Queen [1999] HCA 50
Case
[1999] HCA 50
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Katsuno against a conviction for a Commonwealth offence tried in a Victorian court. The central dispute concerned the practice of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in Victoria utilising information provided by the police about potential jurors to inform the exercise of peremptory challenges. Katsuno argued that this practice was unlawful and fundamentally flawed the trial process.
The legal issues before the High Court included whether the practice of the police providing information about potential jurors to the DPP, which was then used to exercise peremptory challenges, was prohibited by the *Juries Act 1967* (Vic). The Court also had to determine the consequences of any such prohibition, specifically whether it constituted a fundamental failure to observe the requirements of the criminal trial process and impacted the constitutional requirement of trial by jury and the representative nature of the jury. The relevance of the reasons for exercising a peremptory challenge was also a consideration.
The High Court reasoned that the *Juries Act 1967* (Vic) did not prohibit the practice in question. The Court found that the provision of information by police to the DPP for the purpose of exercising peremptory challenges did not infringe upon the constitutional requirement of trial by jury or the representative nature of the jury. The exercise of peremptory challenges, even if informed by such information, was not considered a fundamental failure to observe the requirements of the criminal trial process. The Court held that the practice, as conducted, did not invalidate the jury's constitution or authority, nor did it fundamentally undermine the trial process.
The appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
GLEESON CJ
GAUDRON, GUMMOW AND CALLINAN JJ
HUGH J
KIRBY J
(dissent)
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by:
GLEESON CJ,
GAUDRON, GUMMOW AND CALLINAN JJ,
HUGH J,