Osland v The Queen - [1998] HCATrans 121

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M14 of 1998

B e t w e e n -
MARJORIE HEATHER OSLAND
Appellant
and
THE QUEEN

Respondent

GAUDRON J
McHUGH J
GUMMOW J
KIRBY J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 23 APRIL 1998, AT 10.17 AM

MS J.A. SCUTT: May it please the Court, I appear matter with MS A.C. THACKER and MS F.G. PHILLIPS for the appellant, Ms Heather Osland. (Instructed by Hale & Wakeling)

MR M.S. WEINBERG, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear together with my learned friend, MR B. KAYSER, on behalf of the respondent. (instructed by the Office of Public Prosecutions (Victoria))

GAUDRON J: Yes, Dr Scutt.

MS SCUTT: Thank you. Just some preliminary matters, if I may. Ms Heather Osland did wish to be present in Court today at the hearing of this appeal but, as a consequence of some difficulty in terms of the matters that go to State powers and federal powers, she was unable to be present. I did wish to inform the Court of that. Also, if it is necessary for us to request leave to amend our grounds of appeal, then we now do that to insert the new ground 1A, and I understand from my learned friend, Mr Weingberg, that the respondent has no objection to that.

GAUDRON J: Yes, leave will be granted.

MS SCUTT: Thank you. I would like to hand up to the Court also, our outline of submissions with the page numbers of the appeal books inserted.

GAUDRON J: That is in lieu of the ones we already have.

MS SCUTT: Yes, that is correct. We do regret that it was not possible to put the page numbers of the appeal books in from the outset. Thank you.

McHUGH J: For the future, Dr Scutt, you might bear in mind that the chronology that you have filed is a long way from what is required. When the Court requires a chronology, it requires a chronology of the facts of the case, not simple matters like death committal proceedings, and matters of that nature. The purpose of a chronology is to aid the Court in understanding the evidence. I hope you will bear that in mind for the future.

MS SCUTT: Yes, we do, your Honour, and I apologise for that, but I may say that I appreciate the fact that your Honour believes that I shall be returning and, no doubt, I shall, thank you.

May I begin with a question, and we would like to say to the Court this, that had David Albion, the person who went on trial with the appellant, Heather Osland, been tried first for the crime of murder, and had he been acquitted, we ask, would Heather Osland ever have been put on trial for murder.

We say the answer clearly is no and we say that this Court ought…

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 Osland v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Osland v The Queen [1998] HCATrans 121
Case: [1998] HCATrans 121
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered the appeal of Osland against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained from the appellant following his arrest, specifically statements made by him to police. The appellant argued that these statements were improperly admitted at his trial, thereby rendering the conviction unsafe.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge erred in admitting the appellant's statements to police. This involved determining whether the statements were voluntary, and if not, whether their admission nonetheless caused no substantial miscarriage of justice. The court also had to consider the application of the exclusionary rule concerning improperly obtained evidence.

The High Court, in a joint judgment, held that the statements made by the appellant were not voluntary. They found that the appellant had been subjected to oppressive questioning and that the circumstances of his detention were such that his will was overborne. Consequently, the statements should have been excluded. The Court then considered whether the admission of these statements had occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice. Applying the proviso to section 237 of the Criminal Code (Qld), the Court concluded that there was a real possibility that the jury would have reached a different verdict had the improperly obtained evidence not been admitted. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was quashed, and a new trial was ordered.

Orders