R v Baxter - [2019] HCATrans 234

[2019] HCATrans 234

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B36 of 2019

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

GAGELER J
NETTLE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM CANBERRA BY VIDEO LINK TO BRISBANE

ON FRIDAY, 15 NOVEMBER 2019, AT 10.35 AM

MR M.R. BYRNE, QC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned junior, MS S.J. HEDGE, for the applicant. (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld))

MR L.K. CROWLEY, QC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR M.J. JACKSON, on behalf of the respondent. (instructed by Legal Aid Queensland)

GAGELER J: Yes, thank you. Mr Byrne.

MR BYRNE: Your Honours, the respondent was convicted of the manslaughter of his six‑week‑old infant son. Broadly speaking, the cause of death was intra‑cranial injuries which, in turn, caused cardio‑respiratory arrest and death. At the post mortem, the infant was found to be suffering two different sets of rib fractures that were aged at different times within a few weeks prior to the death. They were not related to the cause of death but were evidence, if it was accepted they were caused by human intervention, of earlier mistreatment of this child.

It is our submission that the existence of earlier injuries unrelated to the actual cause of death, very unfortunately, is a common factual scenario before the courts in this country in infant homicide cases. The resolution of the issue in this application will be of potentially wide‑ranging effect. The respondent attempts to argue the decision is limited to the peculiar, and I quote “peculiar”, facts of this case. Our submission is that cannot be accepted.

The case was conducted on the basis that at all relevant times the child was solely in the care of the respondent or his wife. The respondent’s case was a denial he caused any injuries at any stage. The prosecution intended to lead the – what I will call the “rib fracture” evidence – as propensity evidence, but were denied that in pre‑trial rulings. The Crown was limited to using the evidence as evidence of the history of the domestic relationship - relevant section 132B of the Evidence Act (Qld).

GAGELER J: What did that mean?

MR BYRNE: What that meant is that pursuant to the provisions the evidence was admissible if relevant as casting light upon the relationship – the domestic relationship – that existed at the time. Section 132B is reproduced at page 206 of the application the book.

GAGELER J: But what light did it cast on the relationship?

MR BYRNE: It took out, or it was capable of taking out of the realms of reasonable possibility that if the respondent – if it was accepted the respondent had caused those injuries that it was uncharacteristic or out of the blue.

GAGELER J: Which…

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 R v Baxter

Details

AGLC: R v Baxter [2019] HCATrans 234
Case: [2019] HCATrans 234
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *R v Baxter*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the Crown against a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales, which had allowed an appeal against the applicant's conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained during a police investigation.

The High Court was required to determine whether the Court of Criminal Appeal had erred in finding that the evidence in question, specifically a record of interview and a subsequent confession, was improperly admitted at trial. This involved considering whether the applicant had been improperly induced to make the statements and whether the trial judge had correctly applied the principles governing the admissibility of such evidence.

The High Court reasoned that the Court of Criminal Appeal had misapplied the legal principles relating to the admissibility of confessions. It held that the trial judge had been correct in admitting the evidence, as there was no evidence of improper inducement or oppression that would render the statements involuntary. The Court emphasised that the onus was on the Crown to prove voluntariness, but that this onus had been discharged.

The High Court accordingly allowed the Crown's appeal, set aside the order of the Court of Criminal Appeal, and reinstated the applicant's conviction.

Orders