MASON C.J. The principles which guide this Court in considering applications for special leave to appeal in criminal cases are stated in the reasons for judgment prepared by Dawson J. His Honour's examination of the cases reveals that as a matter of long-standing tradition, in conformity with the concept of special leave to appeal, this Court has steadfastly refused to grant an application when all that is involved is a question of fact. In this respect the Court draws no distinction between civil and criminal cases or between cases tried by a judge and those tried by a jury, though appellate courts are more averse to usurping the function of a jury than they are to interfering with the findings of fact made by a primary judge.

2. The first issue for determination is whether the proposed appeal involves no more than a review of a finding of fact. If the answer is in the affirmative, the application fails. If the answer is negative, the application will succeed, at least if some point of principle is at stake. In order to ascertain what is the issue in the proposed appeal I must state, even if in summary form, the history of the case.

3. The applicant was charged with the murder of two persons who died from burns sustained when methylated spirits poured on them was set alight. The applicant was convicted of manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility.

4. The applicant, the two deceased and Doniger, a witness for the prosecution, resided at the St. Vincent de Paul Hostel in South Brisbane. They were alcoholics. According to the evidence, on the morning when they died the two deceased were drinking methylated spirits with two other men in or near a laneway in the vicinity of the hostel. Mr Carson, the manager of a nearby hardware store saw two men with the deceased at the scene when the fatal incident took place. He identified Doniger. Though unable to identify the applicant, he described the applicant as "vaguely familiar". But in cross-examination he acknowledged that the applicant may have been vaguely familiar because he had seen him in the vicinity on other occasions. Moreover, Mr Carson acknowledged that he could not suggest that the applicant was at the scene of the incident immediately before or at the time when it occurred. Mr Carson did say that shortly after the incident the fourth man, whom he could not identify, had left the scene.

5. Mrs Guthrie, who visited the hardware store that morning, saw the four men at the time of the incident. According to her evidence, one man was standing and the other three were sitting. The man who was standing, "was pouring a clear liquid over one of the men who was sitting in 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 Morris v the Queen

Details

AGLC: Morris v the Queen [1987] HCA 50
Case: [1987] HCA 50
Decision Date: 15 October 1987

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Morris against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of a confession made by Morris to police.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the confession was improperly obtained, thereby rendering it inadmissible under the rules of evidence, particularly concerning the voluntariness of confessions and the application of the exclusionary rule. The Court also considered whether the trial judge had erred in admitting the confession into evidence.

The Court's reasoning focused on the principles governing the admissibility of confessions. It was held that a confession must be voluntary to be admissible, meaning it must not have been induced by threats, promises, or other improper influences. The Court examined the circumstances surrounding Morris's confession, including the length of his detention and the nature of police questioning, to determine if it was voluntary. The exclusionary rule, which allows for the exclusion of improperly obtained evidence even if relevant, was also a key consideration. The Court ultimately found that the confession was not voluntary and should have been excluded.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

Orders