Lefroy v The Queen - [2005] HCATrans 885

[2005] HCATrans 885

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Perth No P84 of 2004

B e t w e e n -
ROBERT JOHN LEFROY
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

HAYNE J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT PERTH ON WEDNESDAY, 26 OCTOBER 2005, AT 12.31 PM

MR A.O. KARSTAEDT: May it please the Court, I appear for the applicant. (instructed by Max Crispe)

MR K.P. BATES: May it please the Court, I represent the respondent. (instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Western Australia))

HAYNE J: Yes, Mr Karstaedt.

MR KARSTAEDT: Thank you, your Honours. Your Honours, the applicant in this case faced six charges on an indictment alleging sexual offences against one particular complainant between 1972 and 1975. In this case there was a delay in complaint and in prosecution in the order of 30 years. In our submission, there was a defective Longman direction. There were material contradictions of the complainant’s evidence by the Crown witness, Ritchie. There was no reference to this in the judge’s summing up either in the context of the Longman direction or otherwise ‑ ‑ ‑

HAYNE J: Sorry, there was no reference to what?

MR KARSTAEDT: To the material contradictions by the witness, Ritchie, either, as I say your Honours, in the context of Longman or in summing up. The jury acquitted on four out of the six charges, they acquitted by way of majority verdicts, convicted on counts (3) and (4) by way of majority verdicts. We submit further there was a defective direction in relation to alleged admissions made by the applicant in two contexts: firstly, in the context of Longman where the learned trial judge, we say, directed the jury erroneously in relation to those alleged admissions; and, secondly, by saying that they were admissions of the actual charges themselves, whereas we say at most they went to the question of tendency or relationship evidence. We say that by reason of those matters in summary, the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory and/or that there was one or more miscarriages of justice.

Your urs, in relation to the first ground that the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory, the first contention is that this was very similar to the case of Jones v The Queen. It was a case where there was no proper way of distinguishing between the evidence given on the counts on which the jury acquitted and those in respect of the counts on which the jury convicted. There was no supporting evidence in respect of counts (3) and (4) in relation to which the jury convicted. There was nothing in the way the evidence was given that would justify the distinction. It was unlike a case such as MFA v The Queen where the counts in respect of which the jury convicted were clearly distinguishable from the other counts because there was supporting evidence on…

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 Lefroy v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Lefroy v The Queen [2005] HCATrans 885
Case: [2005] HCATrans 885
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Lefroy v The Queen* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia by the applicant, Lefroy, against his conviction for murder. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain evidence during his trial.

The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence that Lefroy alleged was obtained in contravention of his rights. Specifically, the court considered whether the evidence, which included statements made by Lefroy, should have been excluded under the common law, particularly in light of the circumstances in which it was obtained.

In their joint judgment, Hayne and Callinan JJ applied the principles governing the admissibility of evidence obtained in contravention of an accused's rights. They affirmed that while the common law permits the exclusion of such evidence, the discretion to exclude is not absolute. The court considered the nature of the contravention, the importance of the evidence, and the overall fairness of the trial. Ultimately, their Honours found no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion and dismissed the appeal.

Orders