Meko v The Queen - [2006] HCATrans 578

[2006] HCATrans 578

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Perth No P15 of 2005

B e t w e e n -
TESFAYE TEKA MEKO
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

GUMMOW J
KIRBY J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT PERTH ON WEDNESDAY, 25 OCTOBER 2006, AT 4.14 PM

MR A.C. McINTOSH: I appear for the applicant. (instructed by David Manera)

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

GUMMOW J: Yes, Mr McIntosh.

MR McINTOSH: Your Honour, this is actually an application for an adjournment which is unopposed. I am in a position to argue the matter if called upon.

GUMMOW J: It seems to me whether we should grant the adjournment does involve some consideration of the merits ‑ ‑ ‑

MR McINTOSH: Yes, it does.

GUMMOW J: - - - rather than bring you back here twice or encourage you to come back twice.

MR McINTOSH: Yes.

KIRBY J: We hate to inconvenience you, Mr McIntosh.

MR McINTOSH: I appreciate that.

GUMMOW J: What would the merits of the appeal be?

MR McINTOSH: Well, there are two points I want to raise. The issue in this case is the…..view, the wrong direction given to the jury. The direction to the jury was that evidence of lies refers to one issue and that is wilful murder. The emphasis goes to only one issue, wilful murder. We say that it goes to other issues.

KIRBY J: I am not quite hearing you, could you come a little bit closer to the centre and share your voice with me.

MR McINTOSH: The issue in this matter is a direction to the jury. The direction was that lies in relation to the knife attack goes to one issue, namely, wilful murder in relation to the axe attack. As you recall, there was an axe attack and a knife attack. The axe was the cause of death. The knife was not the cause of death. The knife was inserted into the victim when the victim was nearly dead or dead.

KIRBY J: But your client said that he did not take the knife into the room. “Never, never, never”, he said. He never took it into the room. He left it outside.

MR McINTOSH: And that is a lie.

KIRBY J: Yes.

MR McINTOSH: The question is, what use can that lie perform? There was the Edwards direction given, but the Court of Appeal erred and said that it only goes to wilful murder. Today I want to present to this Court two scenarios where that direction has to be wrong. The first scenario is this. Supposing the applicant could rely upon a defence of provocation, which was a live issue, in relation to the axe attack. After the axe attack his passion cooled. He then, quite plausibly decided…

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 Meko v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Meko v The Queen [2006] HCATrans 578
Case: [2006] HCATrans 578
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Meko against a conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained during a police investigation, specifically statements made by the appellant and evidence derived from those statements. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge had erred in admitting this evidence, which the appellant argued was obtained in contravention of his rights.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the evidence in question was improperly obtained, and if so, whether its admission at trial had occasioned a miscarriage of justice. This involved an examination of the circumstances surrounding the appellant's arrest and questioning, and whether those circumstances rendered his subsequent statements and the evidence derived from them inadmissible under Australian law, particularly in light of principles concerning the protection of individual rights during police investigations.

The Court analysed the application of the exclusionary rule, considering whether the evidence was obtained in circumstances that were unfair or oppressive to the appellant. It examined the relevant provisions of the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth) and common law principles governing the admissibility of evidence obtained in breach of an accused's rights. The High Court ultimately found that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the evidence, concluding that the circumstances did not warrant its exclusion and that no miscarriage of justice had occurred.

Orders