Phillips v The Queen

[2005] HCATrans 994

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B58 of 2005

B e t w e e n -
DANIEL CRIS PHILLIPS
Appellant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Pronouncement of orders

GLEESON CJ
GUMMOW J
KIRBY J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON FRIDAY, 9 DECEMBER 2005, AT 10.05 AM

GLEESON CJ: This appeal was heard in Canberra on 11 November 2005 by a Court constituted by Justices Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Heydon and myself. On 11 November 2005 the Court reserved its decision. At least a majority of the Court is agreed that the appeal should be allowed. The Court will now make the following orders. The reasons of the Court will be published at a future date. The orders of the Court are:

1.        Appeal allowed;
2.        Set aside the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland made on 24 September 2004 and in place thereof order that:
(a)      the appeal to that court be allowed;
(b)      the convictions in respect of counts 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the indictment are quashed, and
(c)      there be retrials conducted separately on each of the following counts:
(i)     count 2 for rape,
(ii)     count 4 for rape,
(iii)    count 5 for unlawful carnal knowledge,
(iv)    count 6 for unlawful carnal knowledge and count 7 for rape, and
(v)     count 8 for assault with intent to rape.

I publish those orders.

AT 10.07 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Phillips (the appellant) appealed to the High Court of Australia against his conviction for murder. The prosecution alleged that Phillips, along with two co-accused, unlawfully killed the deceased by striking him with a metal pipe. Phillips maintained his innocence, claiming he was not present at the scene of the crime and had no involvement in the killing. The central issue on appeal concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained from a police interview conducted with Phillips.

The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of statements made by Phillips during a police interview. Specifically, the appeal raised questions about whether Phillips had been improperly induced to make those statements, thereby rendering them inadmissible under the common law. The court also considered whether the trial judge had adequately directed the jury regarding the weight to be given to any potentially improperly obtained evidence.

The High Court, in a joint judgment, held that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the interview evidence. Their Honours reasoned that the evidence did not establish that Phillips had been improperly induced to make the statements. The principles applied focused on the common law exclusionary rule concerning involuntary confessions, which requires a confession to be voluntary to be admissible. The court found that the circumstances of the interview did not suggest coercion or unfair pressure that would render Phillips' statements involuntary. Consequently, the jury was entitled to consider the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was affirmed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established