Maloney v The Queen - [2012] HCATrans 342

[2012] HCATrans 342

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B57 of 2012

B e t w e e n -
JOAN MONICA MALONEY
Appellant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent

FRENCH CJ
HAYNE J
CRENNAN J
KIEFEL J
BELL J
GAGELER J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 11 DECEMBER 2012, AT 10.15 AM

MS C.A. RONALDS, SC: May it please the Court, I appear for the applicant with my friends, MR J.K. KIRK, SC, MS S.E. PRITCHARD, SC and MR A.L. McAVOY. (instructed by Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Legal Service (Qld))

MR W. SOFRONOFF, QC, Solicitor‑General of the State of Queensland: May it please the Court, I appear for the respondent with my learned friends, MR S.A. McLEOD and MR A.D. SCOTT. (instructed by Crown Solicitor (Qld))

MR J.T. GLEESON, SC, Acting Solicitor‑General of the Commonwealth of Australia: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friends, MR C.L. LENEHAN and MS F.T. ROUGHLEY, for the Attorney‑General of the Commonwealth, intervening. (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

MR M.G. HINTON, QC, Solicitor‑General for the State of South Australia: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MR M.J. WAIT, for the Attorney‑General for South Australia, intervening. (instructed by Crown Solicitor (SA))

MR G.R. DONALDSON, SC, Solicitor‑General for the State of Western Australia: If it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR C.S. BYDDER, for the Attorney‑General of Western Australia, intervening. (instructed by State Solicitor (WA))

MS K.L. EASTMAN, SC: May it please the Court, I appear for the Australian Human Rights Commission, seeking leave to intervene. (instructed by Australian Human Rights Commission)

FRENCH CJ: Do you seek leave to intervene as a party or as an amicus?

MS EASTMAN: Well, either, your Honour, but the Act provides that the Commission may seek leave to intervene as a party with the Court’s leave, but alternatively, if the Court thinks it is appropriate that the Commission appear as amicus then the Commission is content to take that course as well.

FRENCH CJ: Your preference is to intervene as a party?

MS EASTMAN: It is.

FRENCH CJ: You will have that leave. I should say that in the event that you seek to make any oral submission to supplement your written submissions we will want you to first state succinctly the point you would seek to make that differs from those of the appellant.

MS EASTMAN: Yes, your Honour.

FRENCH CJ: Thank you.

MS M.J. RICHARDS: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MS S.M. FITZGERALD, for the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples Limited, seeking leave to appear as amicus. (instructed by Human Rights Law Resource Centre Ltd)

FRENCH CJ: Ms Richards, you will have leave on the same basis as I have indicated to Ms Eastman in relation 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 Maloney v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Maloney v The Queen [2012] HCATrans 342
Case: [2012] HCATrans 342
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal by the applicant, Maloney, against his conviction for murder. The applicant had been found guilty of murder by a jury in the Supreme Court of Victoria and subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal of Victoria, which dismissed his appeal. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence and the fairness of the trial process.

The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of the applicant's prior convictions and whether the cumulative effect of certain directions given to the jury, particularly concerning the applicant's failure to give evidence, rendered the trial unfair. A further issue was whether the Court of Appeal had correctly applied the principles governing the admission of evidence of prior convictions.

The High Court held that the admission of evidence of prior convictions was an error. It reiterated the principle that such evidence is generally inadmissible unless it has a specific relevance to the issues in the current trial, beyond merely showing a propensity to commit crime. The Court found that the evidence of prior convictions in this case did not meet that threshold and its admission was prejudicial to the applicant. Furthermore, the Court considered the directions given to the jury regarding the applicant's silence, noting that while the jury was entitled to draw adverse inferences, the directions must be carefully framed to avoid unfairly prejudicing the accused.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

Orders