Potier v The Queen - [2013] HCATrans 13

[2013] HCATrans 013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S401 of 2011

B e t w e e n -
MALCOLM HUNTLEY POTIER
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Summons for reinstatement

HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON MONDAY, 11 FEBRUARY 2013, AT 9.52 AM

MR B. LEVET: May it please, your Honour, I appear with my learned friends, MS A.B. PETRIE and MR M. LICHA. (instructed by Malcolm Carr Solicitor)

MR L.A. BABB, SC: May it please your Honour, Babb for the State. (instructed by Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW))

HIS HONOUR: Now, Mr Levet, your client is moving on what affidavits?

MR LEVET: Your Honour, on the affidavit of my instructing solicitor.

HIS HONOUR: That is 18 December 2012?

MR LEVET: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Malcolm Carr.

MR LEVET: Your Honour, I seek to tender ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR: Just to clarify things, he is not moving on the affidavit of Daniel Brezniak.

MR LEVET: No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Is he moving on his own affidavit of 9 December 2011?

MR LEVET: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Now, you said you had some other material.

MR LEVET: Yes, your Honour. Can I tender, your Honour, a set of submissions and a summary of argument that I would seek to rely on also? I apologise for delay ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR: During this pause might I ask, Mr Babb, have you seen this document called “Applicant’s Summary of Argument” and the other one called “Appellant’s Submissions”?

MR BABB: Yes, your Honour, it was on the fax this morning when I arrived.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, in the middle of the night it arrived.

MR BABB: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: So I can understand it, I take it, Mr Levet, that the document called “Appellant’s Submissions” is really directed to today’s particular proceedings and the other document is, in effect, the one that should have been filed some time last year.

MR LEVET: Yes, your Honour. Your Honour, can I indicate in respect to both of them, particularly the outline of case document, there have been significant difficulties in getting what I might term “proper instructions” in relation to the matter. The applicant is an educated person, understandably who is focused very much on this case and who has produced huge amounts of paperwork which were certainly referred to in the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal and has ordered it in a way that is not altogether helpful for his cause, and has made claims which are not altogether helpful to his cause.

But, at the end of the day, when one analyses the material it does boil down to the fact that there was material which appears to have been withheld from the defence during the course of the trial and there appears to have been a mistake made by the Court of Criminal…

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 Potier v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Potier v The Queen [2013] HCATrans 13
Case: [2013] HCATrans 13
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Potier, was convicted of murder in the Supreme Court of New South Wales and subsequently appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. The appeal concerned the admissibility of certain evidence and the fairness of the trial.

The primary legal issue before the High Court of Australia was whether the Court of Criminal Appeal had erred in upholding the trial judge's decision to admit evidence of the applicant's prior convictions. Specifically, the court had to consider whether this evidence was relevant to the issues in the trial and whether its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value, as per the principles governing the admission of such evidence in criminal proceedings.

Heydon J, delivering the judgment of the High Court, reasoned that the prior convictions were not relevant to any issue in the trial and were therefore inadmissible. His Honour emphasised that evidence of prior convictions is generally inadmissible unless it possesses a specific relevance to a matter in issue, such as establishing a pattern of conduct or rebutting a defence. In this instance, the evidence was admitted without sufficient justification, leading to an unfair trial. The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

Orders