Miller v The Queen - [2015] HCATrans 296

[2015] HCATrans 296

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Adelaide No A12 of 2015

B e t w e e n -
EVERARD JOHN MILLER
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

KEANE J
NETTLE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM CANBERRA BY VIDEO LINK TO ADELAIDE

ON FRIDAY, 13 NOVEMBER 2015, AT 12.18 PM

MR D.M.J. BENNETT, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friends, MR A.L. TOKLEY, SC and MR G.N.E. AITKEN for the applicant. (instructed by Noblet & Co)

MR A.P. KIMBER, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR M.E. BOISSEAU, for the respondent. (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (SA))

KEANE J: Yes, Mr Bennett.

MR BENNETT: Your Honour, the issue is whether the verdict of the jury was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence under section 353 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, which applies those tests, bearing in mind the nature of the offence, particularly its mental elements and the applicant’s heavily intoxicated condition.

There was no challenge made to the judge’s direction to the jury. There was a challenge before the Court of Criminal Appeal to the direction on intoxication, but that was abandoned. I should mention to your Honours – I know it is probably unnecessary – that in the summary that has been provided to your Honours, the summary erroneously states that the ground that was abandoned is the ground of our appeal, or of our application, which it is not. Our sole basis is that having regard to the degree of intoxication and the mental elements that must – it was unreasonable for the jury not to have a reasonable doubt.

KEANE J: Now, was this contention argued before the Court of Criminal Appeal?

MR BENNETT: Yes, your Honour, and I can give your Honour the passages that do that. If your Honours go to the supplementary book, the supplementary book of materials, it is both in our written submissions and in our oral submissions. In the written submissions, if your Honours go to page 9, paragraph 34:

The verdicts are unsafe and unsatisfactory and cannot be supported by the evidence.

Then, the particulars follow – and 34.3 is the reference to intoxication, which it then goes into some detail of, and it is summarised at 34.3.5 on page 10 that:

The appellant’s high blood alcohol reading undermined his capacity to enter an agreement that caused serious bodily harm or contemplate that serious bodily harm would be inflicted.

That is repeated in paragraph 39 on page 11, summarising what goes before, that:

It was not open on the whole of the evidence for the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt -

In our oral submissions before the Court of Criminal Appeal, your Honours will see that at page 14 of the supplementary book, line 20, there are…

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 Miller v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Miller v The Queen [2015] HCATrans 296
Case: [2015] HCATrans 296
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerns an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia by the applicant, Miller, against the respondent, The Queen. The applicant sought to challenge the verdict of a jury, arguing that it was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence, particularly in light of his heavily intoxicated state at the time of the offence. The central dispute revolved around whether Miller's intoxication prevented him from forming the necessary mental elements for the offence, specifically concerning joint criminal enterprise.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the jury's verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory, and whether it could be supported by the evidence, having regard to the applicant's significant intoxication. The applicant contended that his intoxication, estimated to be equivalent to 14 to 17 standard drinks combined with the effects of diazepam and cannabis, rendered him incapable of forming the requisite agreement or contemplating that serious bodily harm would be inflicted by his co-accused. This was argued to be a central proposition that the Court of Criminal Appeal had failed to adequately address in its judgment.

The applicant's legal team argued that the principles established in cases such as *R v O'Connor* applied, whereby intoxication can negate the capacity to commit an offence if a specific mental element is required. They presented expert evidence detailing the severe impairment caused by Miller's blood alcohol concentration and the synergistic effects of the other substances ingested. This evidence suggested that Miller would have exhibited slurred speech, staggering, and significantly impaired decision-making, potentially to the extent that he could not have foreseen the actions of his co-accused or agreed to participate in a joint criminal enterprise involving serious harm. The applicant submitted that a reasonable jury, considering this evidence, should have entertained a reasonable doubt as to his capacity to form the necessary mental elements, leading to a verdict of not guilty.

The applicant sought special leave to appeal, arguing that the justice of the case required it, given the alleged failure of the Court of Criminal Appeal to properly consider the intoxication argument. The applicant proposed that the High Court could either allow the appeal immediately, set the matter down for a full appeal, or remit it back to the Court of Criminal Appeal for reconsideration.

Orders