Melbourne v The Queen [1999] HCA 32 5 August 1999 D10/1998
ORDER
Appeal dismissed.
On appeal from the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory
Representation:
S J Odgers with S J Cox for the appellant (instructed by Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission)
D Grace QC with A M Fraser for the respondent (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Territory))
Notice: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
CATCHWORDS
Melbourne v The Queen
Criminal law – Evidence – Character evidence – Evidence of accused's good character adduced – Relevance of character evidence to propensity to commit offence charged – Relevance of character evidence to accused's credibility – Directions to jury – Whether directions about use of character evidence mandatory.
McHUGH J. The issue in this appeal is whether a trial judge who has directed the jury that evidence of the good character of the accused is to be taken into account on the issue of that person's guilt errs if he or she does not also direct the jury that that evidence can be taken into account when considering the accused's credibility.
At a more general level, the appeal raises the following matters:
(a)whether directions to the jury about the accused's good character should be mandatory or discretionary;
(b)the nature of any such direction;
(c)the nature and usefulness of good character evidence generally.
The factual background
Roy Bernard Melbourne (the accused) was convicted of murder in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory on 13 June 1996 after a trial before a jury and Thomas J. The Court of Criminal Appeal of the Northern Territory (Martin CJ, Gallop and Angel JJ) dismissed his appeal against the conviction. Pursuant to a grant of special leave, he now appeals to this Court.
In July 1995, the accused, who had lived next door to the deceased, Mrs Irene Chambers, for about 10 months, killed her by stabbing her three times. At the scene, he told[1] one person, in a very flat tone of delivery, that he "did it because she just wouldn't stop". When police officers arrived at the scene, they observed that the accused was "vacant" and "dazed or intoxicated or both". He did not respond to their questions and was unsteady on his feet. The accused was breathalysed and found to have a blood alcohol content of 0.136 per cent. He was seen by a doctor some hours after being taken into custody and said that he did not know why he had been arrested. In an interview the next day, a police officer asked the accused whether he had any recollection of stabbing the deceased. The accused replied "None - none whatsoever".
[1]The jury were entitled to conclude from other evidence tendered at the trial that this was intended as a reference to Mrs Chambers banging on…
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 Melbourne v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Melbourne v The Queen [1999] HCA 32
Case
[1999] HCA 32
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Melbourne appealed his conviction for murder to the High Court of Australia after his appeal was dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Northern Territory. The accused, Roy Bernard Melbourne, was convicted of killing his neighbour, Mrs Irene Chambers, by stabbing her. At trial, evidence was adduced regarding the accused's good character, including his lack of prior convictions (save for a drink-driving offence) and testimony from acquaintances. The accused also presented evidence suggesting he was experiencing auditory hallucinations due to "water hammer" in his unit, which he believed were caused by the deceased.
The central legal issues before the High Court concerned the admissibility and use of good character evidence in criminal trials. Specifically, the Court was asked to determine whether directions to the jury regarding the accused's good character should be mandatory or discretionary, the nature of any such direction, and the general usefulness of good character evidence. The accused contended that his trial miscarried due to the trial judge's failure to direct the jury that they could use his good character evidence to assess the credibility of his out-of-court assertions, which formed the basis of expert opinions supporting his defence.
The High Court considered the relevance of good character evidence to both the propensity to commit the offence and the credibility of the accused. While acknowledging that good character evidence can be relevant to both aspects, the Court noted that the accused's counsel at trial had placed greater emphasis on its relevance to the improbability of the accused committing the offence, rather than his credibility. The Court's reasoning, though not fully detailed in the provided text, would have involved an analysis of established principles regarding the use of character evidence and the judge's duty to direct the jury appropriately.
The appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
At a more general level, the appeal raises the following matters:(a)whether directions to the jury about the accused's good character should be mandatory or discretionary;(b)the nature of any such direction;(c)the nature and usefulness of good character evidence generally.The factual background Roy Bernard Melbourne (the accused) was convicted of murder in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory on 13 June 1996 after a trial before a jury and Thomas J. The Court of Criminal Appeal of the Northern Territory (Martin CJ, Gallop and Angel JJ) dismissed his appeal against the conviction. Pursuant to a grant of special leave, he now appeals to this Court. In July 1995, the accused, who had lived next door to the deceased, Mrs Irene Chambers, for about 10 months, killed her by stabbing her three times. At the scene, he told[1] one person, in a very flat tone of delivery, that he "did it because she just wouldn't stop". When police officers arrived at the scene, they observed that the accused was "vacant" and "dazed or intoxicated or both". He did not respond to their questions and was unsteady on his feet. The accused was breathalysed and found to have a blood alcohol content of 0.136 per cent. He was seen by a doctor some hours after being taken into custody and said that he did not know why he had been arrested. In an interview the next day, a police officer asked the accused whether he had any recollection of stabbing the deceased. The accused replied "None - none whatsoever".[1]The jury were entitled to conclude from other evidence tendered at the trial that this was intended as a reference to Mrs Chambers banging on the wall of his unit at night time.Noises heard by the accused For some time before Mrs Chambers' stabbing, the accused had been hearing loud knocking or banging noises in his unit. The noises occurred at night. The accused believed that they were made by Mrs Chambers. He had spoken to several people about the noises and told those people that the noises had become so bad that he was planning to move to Mount Isa. Indeed, he had sold most of his furniture and bought a bus ticket before the stabbing took place. A plumber testified that suddenly turning off a tap in the accused's unit caused a knocking noise which is known as "water hammer". The sudden turning off of the tap caused a wave to travel through the water in the pipe with the result that the washer in the tap reverberated noisily. The plumber gave evidence to the effect that it was possible that there was "water hammer" in the accused's unit which was caused by the sprinkler system installed in the grounds of the block of units where the accused lived. The sprinkler system had six sprinkler stations. It was programmed so that at 2:00am one sprinkler station would come on, remain on for 30 minutes, and then be shut off suddenly by an electrical solenoid at the same time as the next sprinkler station would come on. This cycle would be repeated for all six sprinkler stations. This meant that there was a station being suddenly shut off once every 30 minutes from 2:30am until 5:00am.Defence of diminished responsibility
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Whether the jury accepted the truth of the answers and assertions relied on by the expert witnesses was largely, if not wholly, dependent on the view that they formed about the credibility of the accused. His credibility was therefore an issue of great importance at the trial. Because that is so, the accused contends that his trial miscarried when the learned trial judge failed to direct the jury that they could use evidence of his good character to conclude that his out-of-court assertions were credible.Evidence of the accused's good character In support of his claim that he was a person of good character, the accused adduced evidence that he had no previous convictions for a criminal offence other than a conviction for drink-driving in 1975, and evidence that he was not "adversely known to the police". He also adduced evidence of his character and personality from those who knew him. It will later be necessary to refer to this character evidence in more detail.The trial judge's direction to the jury on good character In this Court, the argument of counsel for the accused assumed that counsel at the trial had asked her Honour to direct the jury that the evidence of good character was relevant to both:(a)the improbability of the accused having committed the instant offence, or, as counsel for the accused put it, the improbability that the accused is a person "who will make a deliberate choice to kill in a rational state";(b)assessing the credibility of the accused in making the assertions and answers which were the basis of the opinions of his expert witnesses. However, the remarks of counsel in seeking directions and in his closing address suggest that he placed little reliance on the character evidence to support the credibility of the answers and assertions that were the basis of the expert opinions. In the course of his submissions for re-directions, counsel said:"[I]t would be my submission that the aspect of the improbability of committing the instant offence, having a history of good character for 60odd years, is of considerable significance.The aspect of his credibility is probably of lesser significance, having regard to the nature of the interview itself that has been severely criticised by me as showing a lack of credibility, but, in any event, it is the primary aspect of the evidence ... that should be brought to the jury's attention and one which ... as a matter of law, he is entitled to.I thought the most convenient repository of the law in relation to this is a decision of R v Murphy[[3]] ... The situation in Murphy's case, obviously, was that it's the aspect of credibility which was the most significant. In my submission, in this case it's the reverse; it's the aspect of probability or inherent probability of the commission of the offence." (emphasis added)[3](1985) 4 NSWLR 42. In reply to counsel for the Crown, counsel for the accused said:"[T]he aspect of credibility, while I say it [is] not the primary consideration, nonetheless, is also significant, in terms of considering his explanation, not just to Mr Newman[4] but to the others."[4]Mr Newman was the detective in charge of the investigation.