PNJ v The Queen - [2007] HCATrans 691

[2007] HCATrans 691

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Adelaide No A16 of 2007

B e t w e e n -
PNJ
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent

GLEESON CJ
GUMMOW J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM CANBERRA BY VIDEO LINK TO ADELAIDE

ON FRIDAY, 16 NOVEMBER 2007, AT 11.41 AM

MR T.A. GAME, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear for the applicant with my learned friend, MR H.M. HEUZENROEDER. (instructed by George Mancini & Co)

MR M.G. HINTON, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear for the respondent. (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (SA))

GLEESON CJ: Yes, Mr Game.

MR GAME: If the Court pleases, the main question raised by this case is whether or not Pearce and Island Maritime mandate a different approach and a different outcome from that taken by the judge at first instance, Justice Layton, and the Court of Criminal Appeal on appeal. In our submission, and I will come to how Justice Layton dealt with the issue, shortly, but in our submission if the approach taken by Justice Layton and the Full Court is correct then the only place, ultimately, for autrefois convict and acquit is for offences where the second offence is merely an aggravated form of the first or the second is a less aggravated form of the first. In our submission, no such result was mandated by Island Maritime or Pearce.

In effect, the approach taken by the Court of Criminal Appeal and Justice Layton requires the comparison in abstract of the elements of the second offence compared in abstract with the elements of the first offence. Our submission is that applying Li Wan Quai v Christie, Pearce and Island Maritime, the correct approach is to ask oneself whether or not the material, by which I mean the essential facts, required to prove the second offence, here murder, would necessarily prove the first charged offence upon which there has been a conviction, wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

If your Honours turn to page 115 of the application book you will see – perhaps if I just direct your Honours’ attention to three short passages and then I will return to the example given at paragraph 17. From paragraph 19 we take a quote from Li Wan Quai v Christie which was cited, with approval, in all of the cases, the test being:

whether the evidence necessary to support the second charge would have been sufficient to procure a legal conviction upon the first.

At the top of page 116, paragraph 21 is a statement of the test in which the correct approach is to compare - this is from Island Maritime, paragraph 30 – “the facts constituting the elements of the offence”. Then you see at paragraph 23 a reference to a passage in Pearce. I want to take your Honours to Pearce before returning to…

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 PNJ v The Queen

Details

AGLC: PNJ v The Queen [2007] HCATrans 691
Case: [2007] HCATrans 691
Decision Date: 16 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of PNJ v The Queen concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia by the applicant, PNJ, against a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute arose from PNJ's conviction for a serious criminal offence.

The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in admitting certain evidence during PNJ's trial. Specifically, the appeal focused on the admissibility of a confession made by PNJ, and whether its admission had resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The Court considered the principles governing the admissibility of confessions, particularly in circumstances where there are allegations of unfairness or impropriety in the manner the confession was obtained. Gleeson CJ and Gummow J analysed the relevant evidence and legal tests, ultimately concluding that the admission of the confession did not occasion a miscarriage of justice. The Court found that the trial judge had properly exercised their discretion in admitting the evidence.

Orders