Myles v The Queen - [1996] HCATrans 192

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B39 of 1995

B e t w e e n -

ROBERT ROY MYLES

Applicant

and
THE QUEEN

Respondent

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B40 of 1995

ANTHONY JAMES MYLES
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Applications for special leave to appeal

DAWSON J
GUMMOW J
KIRBY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT BRISBANE ON FRIDAY, 21 JUNE 1996, AT 9.35 AM

________________

MR M.A. MacGREGOR, QC: May it please your Honours, in these matters I appear with my learned friend, MR G.D. WENDLER, for the first applicant, Robert Roy Myles. (instructed by John D. Weller & Associates)

MR J.D. WELLER: I appear for the applicant, Anthony James Myles. (of J.D. Weller & Associates)

MR M.J. BYRNE, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MRS L.J. CLARE, for the respondent in each case. (instructed by D. Field, Solicitor to the Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland))

DAWSON J: Are the matters to be heard together, Mr MacGregor?

MR MacGREGOR: Yes, your Honour.

DAWSON J: Mr MacGregor, I see there is a video screen there. You had intimated that you may wish to play part of a video or a video as part of your case. Is that right?

MR MacGREGOR: Your Honour, I am in two minds about it. An issue in the case requires a comparison as to the evidence which the jury had of the loading of a vehicle enlarged by what they may have observed ‑ ‑ ‑

DAWSON J: It is a matter for you, if I can cut you short, but I think I intimated through the Deputy Registrar that the playing of the video should form part of the time

which you have. Now, may I inquire how long the part that you wish to play, if you do play it ‑ ‑ ‑

MR MacGREGOR: If that is so, your Honour, I am pleased that it is in very short compass. It takes about 20 minutes. It is substantially repetitive and, indeed, I did not subject myself to the whole of it; I fast-forwarded it at various times. The total time taken is about 20 minutes.

DAWSON J: The amount of time you would want to take in playing it would be, what?

MR MacGREGOR: If I were operating the fast-forward, and I am not, and your Honours are not going to do that, it would really I suppose have to be played in its entirety. I would rather make the point clear to your Honours, and if your Honours felt that it was necessary in any event in the interests of discharging the appeal ‑ ‑ ‑

DAWSON J: To look at it?

MR MacGREGOR: And you felt obliged to look at it, no doubt you would. But I am not going to invite your Honours to do so if it eats into the time that…

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 Myles v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Myles v The Queen [1996] HCATrans 192
Case: [1996] HCATrans 192
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Myles against a conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained through a search of the appellant's property, which was conducted without a warrant. The appellant argued that the evidence was unlawfully obtained and should have been excluded from trial.

The High Court was required to determine whether the search conducted by police was lawful under the relevant legislation, and if not, whether the evidence obtained should have been admitted under the discretion to admit unlawfully obtained evidence. This involved an examination of the powers of police to conduct searches without a warrant in circumstances where they have reasonable suspicion that an indictable offence has been, or is about to be, committed.

The Court analysed the provisions of the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth) and relevant common law principles concerning the admissibility of evidence. It was held that the police had reasonable grounds to suspect that the appellant was involved in a criminal enterprise, which justified the warrantless search. The Court affirmed that the discretion to exclude unlawfully obtained evidence is a broad one, but it is not to be exercised as a matter of course. In this instance, the Court found no error in the trial judge's decision to admit the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders