PGA v The Queen - [2011] HCATrans 267

[2011] HCATrans 267

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Adelaide No A15 of 2011

B e t w e e n -
PGA
Appellant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent

FRENCH CJ
GUMMOW J
HAYNE J
HEYDON J
CRENNAN J
KIEFEL J
BELL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT ADELAIDE ON TUESDAY, 27 SEPTEMBER 2011, AT 10.17 AM

MR D.M.J. BENNETT, QC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friends, MR P.F. MUSCAT, SC and MR A.L. TOKLEY, for the appellant. (instructed by Legal Services Commission (SA))

MR M.G. HINTON, QC, Solicitor‑General for the State of South Australia: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MR K.G. LESSES, for the respondent. (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (SA))

MR S.J. GAGELER, SC, Solicitor‑General of the Commonwealth of Australia: If the Court pleases, I appear with MR G.A. HILL for the Attorney‑General of the Commonwealth intervening in the interests of the respondent. (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

MR J.D. McKENNA, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR G.J.D. DEL VILLAR, for the Attorney‑General of the State of Queensland intervening. (instructed by Crown Law (Qld))

FRENCH CJ: Yes, Mr Bennett.

MR BENNETT: May it please the Court. Your Honours should have our outline of oral submissions. It commences - I say we make five submissions. In fact, we make four. The fifth is really a collection of answers to the letter from the Registrar and a couple of matters in our learned friends’ submissions. The four submissions are numbered one to four, and matched by four schedules giving the materials in relation to each.

The first submission we make is that prior to R v L, a man could not be guilty of the crime of raping his wife. There were three qualifications to that. The first was that the conduct might amount to a lesser offence such as assault. Secondly, he could aid and abet another person to rape his wife, and if he did that, would be guilty as a principal, and the third exception was a series of exceptions dealing with cases where there had been judicial separation or a long molestation order or matters of that sort.

HAYNE J: Could not be guilty of or could not be prosecuted for? The propositions are radically distinct.

MR BENNETT: Your Honour, it was not a crime and it not being a crime, I suppose one could be prosecuted, but the prosecution would be doomed to failure.

HAYNE J: Would it be a demurrable indictment, would the accused have a plea in bar? What would be the position?

MR BENNETT: If the fact of the marriage were stated in the indictment, yes, your Honour.

HAYNE J: Yes, what, it would be demurrer?

MR BENNETT: Yes, your Honour. The starting point is R v L 174 CLR 379, which is a…

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 PGA v The Queen

Details

AGLC: PGA v The Queen [2011] HCATrans 267
Case: [2011] HCATrans 267
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by PGA against a conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained from the appellant, specifically a confession made to police.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the confession was improperly obtained, thereby rendering it inadmissible under the common law. This involved an examination of the voluntariness of the confession and whether the police had acted unfairly or improperly in obtaining it, particularly in light of the appellant's circumstances at the time of questioning.

The Court analysed the principles governing the admissibility of confessions, including the requirement that they be voluntary and not the product of oppression or unfair conduct. It considered the appellant's mental state and the circumstances surrounding his interview with police. The Court ultimately found that the confession was not improperly obtained and therefore admissible. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders