Criminal Law—Evidence—Confession—Uncorroborated signed confession—Warning to jury.
Decisions
MASON C.J., DEANE, GAUDRON AND McHUGH JJ. The applicants, Vincent Peter McKinney and Michael Allan Judge, seek special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales dismissing their appeals from convictions on three charges arising out of the breaking and entering of premises at Dharruk in the western suburbs of Sydney. The prosecution case was that the premises were entered by three men, one of whom was armed. The uncontested evidence was that an armed man demanded money from one of the occupants, and, a little later, another occupant was seriously injured when a single shot was fired from a gun. The prosecution case was that the applicants and a co-accused (who was acquitted of all charges) were each guilty, on the basis of common purpose or joint enterprise, of breaking and entering, assault with intent to rob and assault occasioning grievous bodily harm.
2. The case against the applicants was substantially based on signed police records of interview. Each of the applicants signed a record of interview in which he stated that he, and he alone, had entered the premises at Dharruk and accidentally discharged the gun. The co-accused signed a record of interview in which he too confessed to having discharged the gun. That record of interview was the subject of a voir dire examination and was not admitted into evidence. However, it was elicited in cross-examination that a third person had signed a record of interview admitting responsibility for the events at Dharruk. In summing up the trial judge put the matter on the basis that "a third confession (was) made by a person whose identity does not emerge in the evidence".
3. The applicants and the co-accused were arrested in a dawn raid on Friday, 15 August 1986. They were interviewed by different police officers, the interview with the applicant Judge commencing at about 1.00 p.m. on that day and the interview with the applicant McKinney commencing at 2.40 p.m. They were not taken before a magistrate until the following day, Saturday. It is not contended that that period of custody was lawful. See Williams v. The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 278.
4. The applicants were directly linked to the events at Dharruk only by their records of interview. Apart from the applicants' signatures, there was no independent evidence corroborating the making of those records or confirming their contents. The defence of each of the applicants was conducted on the basis that his record of interview was fabricated by the interviewing police officers and that he had signed the fabricated document only because his will was overborne. Each now seeks special leave to appeal on the ground that a warning should have been given as to the danger of convicting on the…
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 McKinney v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
McKinney v The Queen [1991] HCA 6
Case
[1991] HCA 6
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
McKinney appealed his convictions to the High Court of Australia, following a decision by the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. The central dispute concerned the admissibility and weight of an uncorroborated signed confession made by the appellant.
The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had adequately warned the jury regarding the dangers of relying on an uncorroborated confession, particularly in circumstances where the confession was signed by the accused. The court also considered the broader principles governing the admission of confessions in criminal proceedings and the role of judicial warnings in ensuring a fair trial.
The High Court reasoned that a warning to the jury about the potential unreliability of an uncorroborated confession is a fundamental safeguard. The court emphasised that the mere fact that a confession is signed does not automatically render it reliable or remove the need for a strong warning. The judges applied the principle that the jury must be carefully directed to consider all the circumstances surrounding the confession, including any potential inducements, threats, or the mental state of the accused at the time of making the statement. The absence of sufficient corroboration, coupled with a potentially inadequate warning, could lead to a miscarriage of justice.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the decision and orders of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales, and ordered that the convictions be quashed and a new trial be held.
Orders
Orders of the court
Applications for special leave to appeal granted.
Appeals allowed.
Set aside the decision and orders of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales and in lieu thereof order that the convictions be set aside and a new trial held.