Morris v The Queen - [2004] HCATrans 567

[2004] HCATrans 567

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B64 of 2004

B e t w e e n -
WILLIAM MONTAGUE MORRIS
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Application for bail

HEYDON J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM BRISBANE BY VIDEO LINK TO CANBERRA

ON WEDNESDAY, 8 DECEMBER 2004, AT 4.28 PM

MR A.F. MAHER: May it please the Court, I appear for the applicant. (instructed by Martinez Quadrio Lawyers)

MR J.A. LOGAN, SC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MR S.J. LEE, to respond on behalf of the Crown. (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld))

HIS HONOUR: Mr Maher, you are moving on a summons dated 6 December 2004?

MR MAHER: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: And that is supported by an affidavit of Stephen James Quadrio, dated 3 December 2004?

MR MAHER: Yes, your Honour, that is the material for the applicant.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Mr Logan, you do not object to that affidavit, I take it?

MR LOGAN: The affidavits have been seen. There is no objection on behalf of the Crown, nor does the Crown read any material other than the entry of appearance filed today.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. I gather from your written submissions, Mr Logan, that you do not oppose the grant of bail?

MR LOGAN: That is correct, your Honour. The grant of bail is not opposed, for the reasons set out in the outline filed.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. One other thing, and this is something I would ask of both counsel, it seems appropriate that there should be an order of expedition in this matter because if the applicant’s constitutional argument fails, then obviously the sentence must be carried out. It is undesirable that it should hang, as it were, for many months. Do you oppose expedition, Mr Logan?

MR LOGAN: No, your Honour, and, with respect, the Crown is grateful for your Honour’s raising that.

HIS HONOUR: It is just that I am not familiar with what date in early next year would be available. The Registrar has said that the special leave application could probably be heard on 21 March in Brisbane, but it is also possible that some vacancy might appear in a special leave list earlier than that in some other city. I think, in the circumstances, if a vacancy does appear, it would be desirable that counsel travel to that other city. Do you oppose expedition, Mr Maher?

MR MAHER: No, your Honour. Respectfully, we support that.

HIS HONOUR: I think, in the circumstances, I need not trouble counsel further and I should probably say something about the circumstances.

The applicant applies for bail pending the hearing of an application filed by him for special leave to appeal against a dismissal by the Queensland Court of Appeal, comprising Justices McPherson, Williams and White, of an appeal against conviction.

He was convicted on four counts of…

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 [2004] HCATrans 567
Case: [2004] HCATrans 567
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Morris v The Queen*, the applicant, Morris, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against a conviction for murder. The dispute concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained through a police interview conducted after Morris had been arrested and charged.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the evidence obtained during the interview was admissible, given that Morris had been informed of his right to remain silent and had been cautioned, but had not been informed of his right to communicate with a legal practitioner or a relative. The Court was required to consider the application of the common law exclusionary rules, particularly in relation to confessions and admissions obtained in circumstances where an accused person's rights may have been infringed.

The Court, in dismissing the application for special leave, considered the principles governing the admissibility of confessional evidence. It was held that while informing an accused of their right to silence and cautioning them is a fundamental requirement, the absence of specific advice regarding the right to communicate with a legal practitioner or relative does not automatically render a subsequent confession inadmissible. The Court emphasised that the ultimate question for the trial judge is whether the confessional evidence was obtained in circumstances that would lead to its exclusion in the exercise of discretion, considering factors such as voluntariness, fairness, and the overall justice of the case. In this instance, the Court found no error in the trial judge's decision to admit the evidence.

Orders