Morrison v the Queen B43/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B43 of 2001

B e t w e e n -
NEIL MORRISON
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

CALLINAN J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT BRISBANE ON WEDNESDAY, 25 JUNE 2003, AT 1.11 PM

CALLINAN J: Mr Wiltshire, do you continue to appear for the applicant?

MR C.J.R. WILTSHIRE: Yes, if your Honour pleases, I seek leave to appear amicus curiae. I no longer hold instructions to appear for the applicant. (instructed by Forest Lake Lawyers)

MRS L.J. CLARE: Yes, again, I appear with my learned friend, MR M.J. COPLEY, for the respondent. (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland))

CALLINAN J: Mr Wiltshire, the difficulty about that is that – have you seen this letter that the applicant has written?

MR WILTSHIRE: I have, your Honour.

CALLINAN J: It is the one in which he says that he no longer wishes to have you as his counsel.

MR WILTSHIRE: That is so, your Honour.

CALLINAN J: And he seeks an adjournment, as I understand it.

MR WILTSHIRE: That is so.

CALLINAN J: I do not think we can hear somebody who is here against the wishes, even as an amicus curiae, of the applicant.

MR WILTSHIRE: Your Honour, my submission would be that if your Honours were not minded to grant the applicant the adjournment he clearly now seeks, that in the interests of justice I should be permitted to appear amicus curiae ‑ ‑ ‑

CALLINAN J: So it is with that qualification. It is only if the matter is not adjourned?

MR WILTSHIRE: That is so, your Honour.

CALLINAN J: Thank you, Mr Wiltshire. You would not have any objection to the matter being adjourned in the circumstances?

MRS CLARE: No, your Honour, it is difficult to resist such an application particularly given that the conviction is for murder. I do express some concern about the passage of time in relation to this matter. The conviction occurred three years ago. The outlines of submissions were filed

two years ago. So time is marching on and, again, this morning’s events, of course, occurred at the eleventh hour.

CALLINAN J: I can understand your concern about that and perhaps we should make the decision clear that if and when a fresh date is set for this matter it will be expected that the applicant make all such submissions as he wishes to make and he should understand that the matter will be dealt with on that date.

MRS CLARE: I thank your Honour for that information.

CALLINAN J: Thank you, Mr Wiltshire. Thank you, Mrs Clare. The matter is adjourned to a date to be fixed.

AT 1.14 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Morrison against a conviction for murder, following a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained during police investigations.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence that was obtained in circumstances where the appellant had been subjected to oppressive conduct by police. This involved an examination of the principles governing the admissibility of evidence obtained in contravention of an accused's rights, particularly where such contravention might render the evidence unfair to the accused or otherwise improperly obtained.

The Court's reasoning focused on the application of the common law exclusionary rule, which permits a judge to exclude evidence if its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value, or if the evidence was obtained improperly. Callinan and Heydon JJ held that the conduct of the police, while potentially improper, did not reach a level that necessitated the exclusion of the evidence under this rule. They found that the jury was adequately directed on the weight to be given to the evidence, and that the trial judge had exercised their discretion appropriately in admitting it. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established