McNamara, Peter v The Queen

[1978] FCA 51

i

I

CATCIWORDS

Criminal law - Inter locutory appeal - Ju r i sd i c t ion of

Federal Court - Cr i t e r ion f o r exerc ise - Evidence

implicating co-accused - Separate t r i a l s - Adjournment

o f t r ia l - Federal Court o f Aus t r a l i a Act 1 9 7 6 (C'th)

S . 24(1) (b) .

PETER McNAMIW v. THE QUEEN

NI-

No. T N G 5 of 1978

Coram : Brennan, Deane 6 Toohey JJ.

Sydney

22 June 1978 . I

F /' . '

CATCHIYORDS

Criminal law - In te r locutory appea l - J u r i s d i c t i o n o f

Federal Court - C r i t e r i o n for exerc ise - Evidence

. -implicating co-accused - S e p a r a t e t r i a l s - Adjournment

of t r i a l - Federal Court of Aus t r a l i a Act 1976 (C' th)

S , 24(1) (b) .

PETER ElcNAVARA v. THE QUEEN

NT

No. R'JG 5 of 1978

Coram : Brennan, Deane 6 Toohey JJ.

Sydney -

22 June 1978.

!

With great r e s p e c t , t h e r e f o r e , I submit

t h a t i t i s no t necessa r i ly in imica l t o the in t e re s t s

of t he admin i s t r a t ion o f j u s t i ce gene ra l ly o r i n

t h e T e r r i t o r y f o r i t t o be said t h a t h i s iIonour's

discret ion ought not to be reviewed by this cour t

a t t h i s junc ture .

Thank you, your Honours.

BFCiXTAN, J: The court will ad journ fo r a short t ime and will

CWL/ expec t t o resume in minutes. ten

'-

UPON R3SUNINS

BREI?NSJ, J: We should have l iked soae t iae to fornulate our

r e a s o n s i n t h l s mat te r but the circumstances make i t

d e s i r a b l e t h a t we give judgmnt forthwith.

The appe l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h i s Court

under s .24(l)(b) of the Federal Court of Austral ia

- Act 1976 appea r s t o be s ign i f i can t ly l a rge r t han t he

j u r i s d i c t i o n o r d i n a r i l y c o n f e r r e d i n c r b i n a l m a t t e r s .

A t first i n p r e s s i o n , t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n e x t e n c s t o

appeals against inter locutory orders nade by a cour t

of a Terr i tory in cr iminal proceedings pending

b e f o r e t h a t c o u r t , and we were not invited t o read fhe

s ta tu tory proyis ions more narrowly. Section 24(1)!3)

i n c o n f e r r i n g a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n on t h i s court

does not d i f fe ren t ia te be tween f ina l and in te r -

lccutory orders nor between uiminal and civi l

cases . Assuning the jur i sd ic t ion ex tends to in te r -

l o c u t o r y a p p e a l s i n c r i a i n a l m a t t e r s , t h e j u r i s d i c t m n

i s novel. -

It i s e s s e n t i a l t h a t a ju r i sd i cc ion o f t h a t

k ind be e x s r c i s e d s p a r i n g l y l e s t r c s o r t t o t h i s Court

should in te r rupt the ord inary and des i rab le despa tch

of cr iminal charges in the Supreme Courts of t3e

T e r r i t o r i e s . The j u r i s d i c t i o n i s n o t s t e r i l e , but

i t should be exe rc i sed fo r t he pu rpose fo r vh ich the

j u r i s d i c t i o n i s confer red : to ensure thet j u s t i c e i s

done i n t h e conduct of c r h i n a l t r i a l s . That purpose

i s not achieved by i n t e r v e n i n g i n ths conduct of a

c r i a i n a l t r i a l u n l e s s i t appes r s t ha t i n t e rven t ion

i s necessary t o p r e v e n t a miscarr iage of j u s t i c e ,

In te rvant ion is not necessary to ensure the

el iminat ion of a mere possibi l i ty of improper prejudice

a t a t r i a l ; and t h a t f o r two reasons. F i r s t , i n t?e

Event of conviction, relief by way of appeal i s

a v a i l a b l e , when it can be s h o ~ n t h a t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y

has becone a r e & l i t y i n t h e c o u r s e o f t h e t r i a l ; and

second, the securing 0: a f a i r t r i a l i s a duty which

a t r l a l Judge pcrf(JmS hjr tne saking of orders which

a r e i n a sense reciprocal and which of ten t ines cannot

be considered i n i s o l a t i o n . T h u s , t h e p o s s i b i l i t y

of improper prejudice in the course of a j o i n t t r l a l

may be e l i g i n a t e d by r u l i n g s on evidence, by the

t e r n s o f t h e j u d g e ' s d i r e c t i o n s t o t h e j u r y , and

perhaps, by other neans as t h e t r l a l p r o g r e s s e s .

. These cons ide ra t ions l ead ne to r egs rd the

j u r i s d i c t i o n nobi invoked as excep t iona l ; t ha t i s t o

say, it is a j u r i s d i c t i o n which should not be exerclsed

un le s s i t appea r s t ha t t he order appealed frog will

e f f e c t a n i n j u s t i c e , and t h a t t h e i n j u s t i c e c a n be

avoided by t he in t e rven t ion of t h l s Cour t .

I do not th ink tha t the appel lan t has d i s -

charged the onus of shoving that thls i s a case of

tha t k ind . A t the ouzss t , there i s t h e d i f f i c u l t y

of ident i fying the evidence which will b? a d z i t t e d on

t h e j o i n ; t r i a l . S m e of t he s t a t emnt s a l l eged ly

made by Sco t t i n t he absence of t he apge l l an t

implicate the appel lant though they are inadniss ible

1 aga ins t h in , bu t these pre judic ia l s ta tenents nay or

nay not get Into evidence. If sone of tileg are

a d n i t t e d , t h e l e a r n e d t r i a l j u d g e aay o r may no t

be ab le so t o d i r e c t t h e j u r y a s t o gi-Ie adqauate

p r o t e c t i o n t o t h e a p p e 1 l a r . t a g a i n s t t h e i r p r e j u d i c i a l

e f f e c t .

Ru l ings on e v i d a c e have not y e t been

sought fron, nor ye t been given b y , the learned

t r i a l judge. Indeed, he assumd that such evidence

o f adniss ions by S c o t t a s would be a d a i t t e d would not

nam the appe l l an t a s a confederate. If we wern %c

assuae tha t th2 s ta tenents of t h o s e t r l t ~ e s s e s who were

n c t c a l l c d i n t h e c o m i t t a l p r o c e e d i n g s would be

ada i t t ed , t hen h i s Honour 's assmption 110uld be shmn

t o be inco r rec t . But h i s honour has n=t yet ruled

upon t h e i r a d n i s s i o n , n o r , it seem kas he considered

t h e e f f e c t which they , or the adrllitted parts of the",?

would have upon t'ne continuation of a j o i n t Trialm

Ire should not reach a f ina ' l decis lon on a f o i n t t r i a 3

i n advance of the ilngortant	r u l i n g s which	111s	Honour
must nalre as t o evidence.

It i s sirnply no t poss ib l e to p red ica t e o f

the order under appeal that it will be productive of

in jus t ice . ihch depends upon t h e c o d s s which the

t r i a l will take and that i s a course which regains undsr

t he con t ro l of %he t r i a l judge.

101 22/6/78

I * . . .

If, as I propose we ihs?xLss t h i s appeal

and subsequently it appea r s t o the Erie1 judge

t ha t s epa ra t e tr ials should be ordered, i t i s open

t o h i s Honour so t o d i r e c t . The order under appeal

i s not perpe tua l , and t h e r e f u s a l oy this Court t o

in t e rvene does no t e s t a5 l i sh in advance that adherence

to the order cannot produce an in jus t ice ,

The dis9issal of t b i s appeal i s t h e r e s u l t

of adopting the principle ( t o be found i n a d l f f e r e n t

con tex t i n Sackv i l l e 1tJest v. mrney-GeneraJ , 1910

, 128 L.T. 265 ,andnle l l v. Keune 1928 1 R.3.645),

t h a t t he j u r i s d i c t i o n 11111 not be exercised unless

it can be predicated, of t h e o r d e r t h a t i t will e f f e c t

ar? i n j u s t i c e u n l e s s t h i s Court intervene?. It i s

no t des i r ab le in these c i r cuns t ances tha t I should

make any fu r the r obse rva t ions as t o t h e f a c t s .

I should add t h l t I would not sugges t tha t

a t r i a l judge should adjourn a tr ial on every occasior?

where an i n t i a a t i o n i s given ' that an app l i can t washes

t o a p p e a l . Delay i n a c r ix ina l ca se i s i t s e l f a n

i n j u s t l c e , and a very strong case must be zEde t o

warrant an adjournaent t o prosecute an inter locutory

appeal once t h e t r i a l h a s cmmenced. T h i s appeal

s h o c l d , i n a y opinion be d isn issed .

DUNE, J: The cons ide ra t i cns mi l i t a t ing aga ins t a j o i n t t r i a l

i n t h e p r e s e n t n a t t e r zre strong Indeed. The Crowr

p ropcss s to l ead a cors lderable body o f o r a l evi.dencs

cf conversat jons with the appel lant ' s joint accused,

S c o t t , 7ihich 2 r e a l l e g e d t o have occurred, i n the?

absente of t he appe l l an t , a f t e r comiss i -on o f t he

offence charged. These conversetions , i f acceptee ,

i n p l i c a t e t h e a p p e l l a n t a n d e q r e s s l y r a z e him a s

a c0nfederaT.e i n what the Cram a l l e g e s was an

I

o v e r a l l c r i a i n a l a l t e r p r i s e

Exaainatlon of the proof of evidence wbici:

t he Crown proposes t o l e a d f r o 5 a sen io r nz rco t i c s

agent , O'Connor, d i s c l o s e s t h a t t h e e x p e s s I m p l i c a t i m

of the appel lan t by S c o t t i n h i s o r a l s t a t m e n t s was

t h e r e s u l t o f	8	de l ibe ra t e s t ee rmg o f cmvers sc ion
w i t h S c o t t i n	a	d i r e c t l o n which would i q l i c a t e >he

appe l l an t ancl i n a msnner wh-:ch was c h l c u l a t e d t o

e l l c i t i n f o r m t i o n d m a g i n g t o t h e a p p e l l a n t

r ega rd le s s of t he na tu re o r sourLe of S c o t t ' s

knowledge o r be l i e? . T'nare i s no d l -pu te tha t s i g c i f -

i c e n t p o r t i o n s of these al lsged conversat ions are

inadn i s s ib l e aga ins t t he appe l l an t c

JTc/Ps/%e	102
Appara

!

l .

I n thcs? c i rcuqs tmc:ss , the reasons for

d i r e c t i n g	s e p a r a t e	t r l a l s	which	found	f avow	wi th	I	'
!

Elr. J u s t i c e 3ood I n The King v . Hodgscn ( (1915) V.L.R.

119) and i4re J u s t i c e Connor i n The Queen V. Donaldson

and I.li3.liam (SupreQe Court of Aus t r a l i an Cap i t a l r ,

Territory 5 A p r i l 1978) were r e l e v a n t t o the ques t lon .

whether separate t r i a l s should be ordered i n t h e I

present	mat ter .	His	Honom	vas	o f course , e n t i t l e d	i '
i

t o weigh aga ins t t he abovernsr,zioned considerasions i

the o the r cons ide ra t ions and na t t e r s t o which he

r e fe r r ed and t o vinich he paid regard.

The quest ion whether separate t r ia ls should

be ordered i s not however, before us. It i s , i n ' l

t h s l i g h t of t he conc lus ion t o which I hzve CO%= on t

the quostion vbich i s before u s , unnecessary that I 1 '

form o r express an independent opinion of my 3'm on i

t h a t . n a t t e r , TPe questlon befoI2 vs i s whether we

s h o d d i n t c r f e r c a t this s t age , w i th tLe r fusa l of 1'

t h e l e a r n e d t r i a l jlJdg2 t o ex-Zrc ise ths d i c re t ioz i r

vh i sh he posscssed t o o r d e r s e p a r a t e t r i a l s .

I e i l te r ta in ser ious doubts as to whe the r ,

on the i r p ropm cona t ruL t ion , thr? re levant pro-r is lone

of	the Federhl Ccurt	02	Acs t ra l i a Act	1576 confer	t . .
L:

l u r i s d i c t l o n w o n t h i s court C O hesr a n awLeal fyon

- c

i h e r e f u s a l o f - t h e t r i a l juGge t o e x e r c l s e a

d iscre t ionary power t o order separate tr ials. Evven

assunir.g that such a refusal can properly be reggrcled -. I

as in te r lccutory an "order t9 , here i s nuch t o be i

said f o r t h e v i e v t h a s upon the i r p rope r cons t ruc t i cn f-..

iu t he con teP t o f e s t ab l i shed p r inc ip l e s r e l a t iog to 1.;

the rdture of an appeal and t h e c i r c m s t a n c z s 12 which - -7

at? appea l shou ld o rd ina r i ly l i e , t h2 general provisJ ons

of s.24 of the r 'ederal Coul-t. ofluustrnlia Act do n u t i .

confer aut'nority t o institute, o r j h r l s d i c t i o n t f-.

hear , appeal n f rm m in te r locu to ry o rde r i n a g

crilninal prcceeding.

f

The Crown has tovever expressly dis-

clainej. any subnlss ion tha t the cour t l acks jur is-

d i c t ion to hea r t he appea l . The o ther rlle-.ibers oi"

t h e Bench i n c l i n e ts the view th;hat j u r i sd i c t lon does

ex is t . It i s c l e a r l y d e s i r a b l e t h a t a dec is ion be

given forthwith. In all t he s i r cu5s t ances9 and i n

view of t h e concluslon which I have i n amy event reached

3s t o t h e n e r i t s or' the a p p a l , i' an p r e p a r e d t o

concur in dea l ing v i th the 2 l a t t e r on the basis thsi.

ju l i sd i c t ion to hea r t he appea l dozs e x i s t .

JD/PS/Se	22/6 /7P
Appara

On the assunpti-on t h q t j u r i s d i c t i o n t o

hear and deterqine %he a?peal does exlst It I all i n

agreement liith Ifflat 3renr.m J. has said a s t o t h e

pr inciples vhlch should govern i t s e x s r c i s e I n a

I , matter such as the p re sen t c Generally speaking, I

would apply t o t h e p r e s e n t m t t e r t h e p r i n c i p l c s

I

I . a

I e m ~ n c i a t e d . i n t h e c o n t a t of c iv i l p rocced lngs ,

by the Cou& of Apoeal i n Sac l iv i l l e - ik s t v . Attorney=

General (L&. (1928) 1 K . 3 . 645) and ci ted with

approval in ?laxwell v. Keune & Ors. (1910) 128 L.T.Jo.

265 and aany o ther cascs . I a l s o ag ree fo r t he

. reason9 which he has given w i t h ny brother Brennan's

conclusion thzt the appel lanb has not made out a case

f o r i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h the r e f u s a l by t he l ea rned

t r i a l judge t o e x a - c i s e h i s d i s c r e t i o n t c order

a s e p a r a t e t r i a l i n t h e p r e s e n t m a t t e r .

I n t h e resu l t I ag ree tha t t he agpea l

s h o d d be disnisser l . In %e event that thc appel lenz

subsequently renews his application f o r a separate

t r - i a l , the success or f a i l u r e of t h a t a p p l i c s t i o n

should not be regarded as governed by the dec is ion

of this eppeal. That will be a n a t t z r for the judge

of the Supreme Gourt of the Nor thern Ter r i to ry to

whon s>Jch appi icet ion i s made,

TOOHEY, J: I agree the appeal should oe d i m i s s e d ; I agree

with the reasons of h i s Eonour , Mr. Just ice Srennan.

BRENNAN, J: The order of the C m r t i s t h a t the appeal i s

c?ismissed.

JFc/Ps/lc	104	22/6/78
Appara