Nicholls v The Queen, Coates v The Queen - [2004] HCATrans 125

[2004] HCATrans 125

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Perth No P79 of 2003

B e t w e e n -
THOMAS NICHOLLS
Appellant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent

Office of the Registry
Perth No P81 of 2003

B e t w e e n -
MARTIN GRAEME COATES
Appellant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent

GLEESON CJ
McHUGH J
GUMMOW J
KIRBY J
HAYNE J
CALLINAN J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 29 APRIL 2004, AT 10.04 AM

(Continued from 28/4/04)

__________________

GLEESON CJ: Yes, Mr Stone.

MR STONE: If your Honours please. The appellant Coates places reliance in its submissions on Hawley not having complied with the videotaping requirements under section 570D by having encouraged Coates to speak off camera and that he deliberately did so in the off‑camera admissions. The trial judge dealt with that issue, your Honours, in his second ruling; having, by that stage, heard the testimony of Hawley; having, by that stage, seen the video in its entirety, and by that stage then having heard the evidence of Officer Hutchinson. It was then at that point in time a break, so to speak, where submissions were then being made in relation to the evidence of the two senior officers. If I can take your Honours to the commencement of his Honour’s ruling in that regard, because it was somewhat interrupted by further submission by defence counsel.

HAYNE J: Just before we do that, can we go back to an aspect of 570D which may bear directly on this aspect of the matter, in particular, directing attention to section 570D(4)(c) and the requirement for consent. We have already noticed the difference between “interview” and “admission” in various parts of 570. If things are not complex enough, can I inject a third element. The Listening Devices Act 1978 (WA) was, I think, the legislation then in force, that is, at the time of enactment of 570D.

MR STONE: Yes. As I understand it, the Surveillance Devices Act came into ‑ ‑ ‑

HAYNE J: In 1998?

MR STONE: Yes, after this particular interview.

HAYNE J: The 1978 Act, which I have not studied with any care yet, seems to prohibit, in effect, taping of private conversations. So we have a third integer walking across the stage, namely, private conversations, without consent of the parties to it. I direct attention to it for two purposes: one, is this an explanation for what seems to be the legislative assumption about consent reflected in 570D(4); second, if it is relevant, does it say anything about the difference, query distinction, drawn in the provisions of 570D between interview and admission, and does it bear upon questions of reasonable excuse, in particular, a request of a person that a conversation occur in private without recording?

MR STONE: At the time of the second reading speech in relation to section 570D, there was no reference made to the Listening…

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 Nicholls v The Queen, Coates v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Nicholls v The Queen, Coates v The Queen [2004] HCATrans 125
Case: [2004] HCATrans 125
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered appeals by Nicholls and Coates against their convictions for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of confessions made by the appellants to police. The appellants argued that their confessions were involuntary and therefore inadmissible, as they were obtained in circumstances that rendered them unreliable.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judges had erred in admitting the confessions into evidence. This required the Court to determine whether the confessions were made voluntarily, having regard to the totality of the circumstances in which they were obtained. The Court also considered whether the trial judges had properly applied the principles governing the admissibility of confessions, particularly in light of the potential for unfair prejudice to the accused.

The High Court, in a joint judgment, affirmed the principles governing the admissibility of confessions. It held that a confession is inadmissible if it was not voluntary, meaning it was not the product of the free will of the person making it. This is assessed by considering the circumstances in which the confession was made, including any inducements, threats, or pressure exerted by the police, as well as the personal characteristics of the confessor. The Court found that in both Nicholls and Coates, the confessions were voluntary and that the trial judges had correctly admitted them into evidence. The appeals were dismissed.

Orders