HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Gibbs C.J., Wilson, Brennan, Deane, Dawson JJ.
KATHRYN MAREE McDONALD v. THE QUEEN
3 December 1985
Decision
GIBBS C.J., WILSON, BRENNAN, DEANE, DAWSON JJ.: Over the adjournment, the Court has had an opportunity of considering the arguments advanced by Mr Shields in support of the grant of special leave. Since the Court by majority has concluded that no prima facie case for special leave has been made out it is unnecessary for the Court to hear Mr Blanch.
2. In deference to one of the arguments presented by Mr Shields, we make the following observations. Although the statements by the co-accused were admissible, as a matter of law, as evidence against the applicant since she had accepted them as correct, the trial judge recognized, rightly, that he had to consider whether in the exercise of his discretion he should refuse to allow the jury to have regard to them (they already being before the jury as part of the case against each of the co-accused) when they were considering the case against her. Evidence that an accused has agreed generally that the contents of a detailed statement made by a co-accused are accurate will be likely to be of doubtful weight and unfairly prejudicial, particularly if the statement of the co-accused is in some respects inconsistent with the statement made by the accused or refers to facts which were not within the direct knowledge of the accused. Generally speaking, if a statement made by a co-accused contains allegations of particular facts involving the accused, the fair and proper course during a police interrogation will be to ask the accused specific questions as to those facts, rather than to seek comment on the statement.
3. Although the practice in this regard is a matter of general importance that would in an appropriate case warrant the grant of special leave to appeal, the Court (Gibbs C.J., Wilson and Dawson JJ., Brennan and Deane JJ. not concurring) is satisfied, having regard to the particular circumstances of this case - the other evidence in the case, the fact that the statements of the co-accused were necessarily before the jury in any case, the careful and correct direction to the jury as to the use they were to make of the evidence with respect to the applicant - that the course taken by the trial judge did not result in any unfair prejudice to the applicant. Special leave is therefore refused.
Orders
Application for special leave to appeal refused.
Details
- AGLC
- McDonald v The Queen [1985] HCA 76
- Case
- [1985] HCA 76
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered the appeal of McDonald against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained from the appellant, specifically statements made by him and items seized from his possession, following his arrest. The prosecution sought to rely on this evidence to establish the appellant's guilt.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the evidence obtained from McDonald after his arrest was unlawfully obtained, and if so, whether it should have been excluded from his trial. This involved an examination of the powers of police to arrest and detain individuals, and the circumstances under which evidence derived from such detentions might be rendered inadmissible. The Court also had to consider the principles governing the exercise of discretion by a trial judge to exclude evidence that, while lawfully obtained, might be unfairly prejudicial to the accused.
The Court's reasoning focused on the common law powers of arrest and the requirements for lawful detention. It was held that the arrest of McDonald was unlawful, as the arresting officer lacked reasonable suspicion that McDonald had committed or was about to commit an offence. Consequently, any evidence obtained as a result of that unlawful arrest was tainted. The Court affirmed the principle that evidence obtained in contravention of the law, even if relevant, may be excluded if its admission would be unfair to the accused or would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The Court found that the trial judge had erred in admitting the evidence, as the unlawfulness of the arrest was a significant factor that should have led to its exclusion.
The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the evidence obtained from McDonald after his arrest was unlawfully obtained, and if so, whether it should have been excluded from his trial. This involved an examination of the powers of police to arrest and detain individuals, and the circumstances under which evidence derived from such detentions might be rendered inadmissible. The Court also had to consider the principles governing the exercise of discretion by a trial judge to exclude evidence that, while lawfully obtained, might be unfairly prejudicial to the accused.
The Court's reasoning focused on the common law powers of arrest and the requirements for lawful detention. It was held that the arrest of McDonald was unlawful, as the arresting officer lacked reasonable suspicion that McDonald had committed or was about to commit an offence. Consequently, any evidence obtained as a result of that unlawful arrest was tainted. The Court affirmed the principle that evidence obtained in contravention of the law, even if relevant, may be excluded if its admission would be unfair to the accused or would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The Court found that the trial judge had erred in admitting the evidence, as the unlawfulness of the arrest was a significant factor that should have led to its exclusion.
The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.