Newton v The Queen - [2013] HCATrans 73

[2013] HCATrans 073

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Adelaide No A24 of 2012

B e t w e e n -
ROBERT CHARLES NEWTON
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

HAYNE J
GAGELER J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM CANBERRA BY VIDEO LINK TO ADELAIDE

ON FRIDAY, 12 APRIL 2013, AT 9.52 AM

MR W.J.N. WELLS, QC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR A.J. CROCKER. (instructed by Bartel & Hall)

MR M.A. NORMAN: May it please the Court, I appear for the respondent. (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (SA))

HAYNE J: Yes, Mr Wells.

MR WELLS: May it please the Court. We make two submissions and the first addresses appellate function where the ground of appeal to that court is a miscarriage of justice by reason of unreasonable or unsupported verdict. Any failure in that respect – that is, in respect of the appellate function – falls to be corrected, we submit, by this Court. The second submission addresses a direction given by the learned trial judge about reasonable doubt which we submit crossed over into impermissible territory. The Court of Criminal Appeal by its previous decisions has, we submit, allowed an error to creep into the Commonwealth and it falls, we submit, to this Court to correct this error of South Australian jurisprudence.

Can I address the first submission based on the ground of appeal that the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported and in particular the function that an appellate court has with respect to that ground? In this case particular impetus or appellate scrutiny was provided by the forensic disadvantages experienced by the applicant through the length of time between the alleged offending and the charge. Your Honours will have seen from the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal that that matter was the subject of discussion as to the nature and quality of the direction required to be given to a jury under section 34CB of the Evidence Act which had abolished the Longman warning in particular with respect to dangerous to convict.

If I could ask the Court to take up in the casebook page 71 which shows that part of the judgment of Justice Gray, with whose judgment the other members of the Court agreed on this point, addressing what his Honour called the issue of unsafe and unsatisfactory which is the shorthand for unreasonable or unsupported verdict. Your Honours will see that in addressing that issue his Honour cited the decision of Nguyen in this Court and passages cited by the Court in Nguyen, referring back to the seminal case of M v The Queen. That appears at the bottom of 71 on to the top of page 72.

Our submission first of all is that insofar as his Honour regarded those extracts as setting out the authoritative guidance for the Court, it did not…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Newton v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] HCATrans 73
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Newton v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Newton, against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence and the fairness of the trial process.

The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence obtained from the applicant, which the applicant argued was obtained in contravention of his rights. Specifically, the court had to consider the application of the exclusionary rule in relation to evidence obtained in breach of statutory provisions and the principles governing the admission of such evidence in criminal proceedings.

The Court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions governing police questioning and the admissibility of evidence obtained during such questioning. It applied established principles concerning the discretion of a trial judge to exclude evidence, even if lawfully obtained, where its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. The Court affirmed that the admissibility of evidence obtained in breach of statutory requirements is a matter for the trial judge's discretion, guided by the overarching principle of ensuring a fair trial.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction.

Orders