PL v The Queen - [2010] HCATrans 254

[2010] HCATrans 254

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S98 of 2010

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

HAYNE J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 1 OCTOBER 2010, AT 9.38 AM

MR W.C. TERRACINI, SC: Your Honours, I appear with my learned friend, MR J.J. TREVALLION. (instructed by Archbold Legal Solutions)

MS D.M.L. WOODBURNE, SC: I appear for the respondent. (instructed by Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW))

HAYNE J: Yes, Mr Terracini.

MR TERRACINI: This is an application for special leave and it arises out of a judgment by Justice Rothman of the New South Wales Supreme Court in a murder trial which took place in Sydney on 4 May 2009. His Honour heard, at the close of the Crown case, a no case submission that there was no evidence upon which the jury could convict the accused of murder or manslaughter. His Honour directed verdicts of not guilty in respect of both charges. Pursuant to the relevant legislation permitting the Crown to appeal, they did, claiming that his Honour erred in law. The New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal left the murder acquittal untouched, but ordered a new trial in respect of manslaughter only.

This application for special leave is that the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge was himself in error on a point of law, which was contained in his findings concerning the directed verdicts. At page 48 of the application book at paragraph 50, rather than read it out verbatim, the Court of Criminal Appeal enunciates our argument ‑ ‑ ‑

HEYDON J: I do not have the paragraph on that page.

MR TERRACINI: It would be page 48 about – well, it is certainly the last paragraph of that page commencing with the words, your Honour, “The principal contention on the part ‑ ‑ ‑

HAYNE J: Paragraph 55?

MR TERRACINI: Yes. Now, we say there that rather than going through it, that is our argument here and that was our argument then and it is correctly adumbrated by the Chief Justice of New South Wales. We also add that his Honour, the judge at first instance, merely assessed all the relevant evidence and came to a conclusion that there was no evidence capable of satisfying a jury beyond reasonable doubt of an unlawful and dangerous act, which is an essential element of the crime for manslaughter.

The contention made by the Crown in the Court of Criminal Appeal, and made here in her written submissions, is that he erred in claiming that the Crown had to prove a specific or particular act. What his Honour in fact did and it appears, with great respect to the Chief Justice of New South Wales, if one reads the whole of his Honour’s decision,…

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 PL 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: [2010] HCATrans 254
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *PL v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal from a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. The appellant, PL, had been convicted of a number of offences, including sexual offences against a child. The central dispute on appeal concerned the admissibility of certain evidence and the fairness of the trial process.

The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of the complainant's prior sexual history, which the appellant argued was irrelevant and prejudicial. Further, the Court had to consider whether the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the use of this evidence were adequate to ensure a fair trial, particularly in light of the potential for this evidence to inflame the jury's emotions and lead to an unfair conviction.

The Court reasoned that the admissibility of evidence of prior sexual history in sexual offence cases is governed by strict statutory provisions designed to prevent unfair prejudice. Applying these provisions, the Court found that the evidence in question was not relevant to any issue in the trial and its admission was therefore an error. The Court further held that the judge's directions to the jury were insufficient to mitigate the prejudicial effect of the improperly admitted evidence, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

Orders