R v Blades, ex parte Attorney General - [2001] QCA 384

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Blades, ex parte Attorney General [2001] QCA 384

PARTIES: R
v
BLADES, Terri-Ann
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S: CA No 20 of 2001
DC No 2464 of 2000

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Reference under s669A Criminal Code

ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 14 September 2001

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 11 September 2001

JUDGES: Thomas JA, White and Wilson JJ
Judgment of the Court

ORDER: In answer to the Attorney-General’s Reference Question: “Before considering the probative weight of a confessional statement, is a jury required to determine whether the statement was made voluntarily?”, the question should be answered ‘No’

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – ATTORNEY GENERAL REFERENCE S669A CRIMINAL CODE – EVIDENCE – CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS – STATEMENTS – VOLUNTARY STATEMENTS – INDUCEMENT CALCULATED TO CAUSE UNTRUE CONFESSION – GENERALLY – failure by police during questioning to record all conversations with accused – where accused contested admissibility of confessional evidence recorded on a voir dire because of alleged inducements made during unrecorded conversation – where the confessional evidence was ruled admissible – where trial judge then directed the jury they needed to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the confession was voluntary before they could convict – where such direction blurred the roles of judge and jury – where clear error of law

Criminal Code, s669A

Attorney General’s Reference (No 1 of 1975) [1975] 1 QB 773, considered
Basto v The Queen (1954) 91 CLR 628, followed
MacPherson v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 512, followed
McKinney v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 468, considered
R v D [2000] QCA 201, CA No 401 of 1999, 30 May 2000, considered
R v Wakeley [1994] 2 Qd R 196, considered
Williams [1981] 4 A Crim R 441, considered

COUNSEL: B G Campbell for the applicant
R A East for the respondent

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the applicant
Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

THE COURT: This is a referral of a point of law by the Attorney-General under s 669A(2) of the Code following an acquittal. The charge was dishonest misappropriation with a circumstance of aggravation. The point of law is –

“Before considering the probative weight of a confessional statement, is a jury required to determine whether the statement was made voluntarily?”

It is common ground that the principal evidence against the accused was a tape recorded interview in which she made admissions of guilt. At the commencement of the trial the defence objected to admission of the record of interview, submitting that the confession had been induced by police officers in a conversation preceding the recording of the interview. A voir dire was held. After hearing evidence the learned trial judge ruled that the record of interview should be received into evidence.

The tape recording and a transcript thereof were tendered. Both police officers gave evidence, conceding that some unrecorded conversation had preceded the recording but denying…

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 R v Blades, ex parte Attorney General 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: [2001] QCA 384
Decision Date: 14 September 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Blades, ex parte Attorney General was considered by the High Court of Australia. The central issue revolved around the admissibility of confessional evidence and whether a jury is required to determine the voluntariness of such a confession before it can be considered in convicting an accused. The Attorney General sought a reference from the High Court on this matter. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate legal framework for assessing the admissibility of confessions and the role of the jury in such cases.

The primary legal issue was whether the jury must decide if a confession was voluntary before it can be considered for conviction. The court needed to clarify the extent to which juries should be directed on the voluntariness of confessions and whether this constituted a legal error. Additionally, the court examined the implications of police failing to record all conversations with the accused and how this might affect the admissibility of any subsequent confessional evidence.

The High Court found that it was not necessary for a jury to determine the voluntariness of a confession before considering it for conviction. The court held that while the trial judge must ensure the confession is voluntary, it is the judge’s role, not the jury’s, to make this determination. The court emphasised that any error in directing the jury to consider the voluntariness of the confession constituted a clear error of law. Furthermore, the court noted the significance of police recording all conversations with the accused to ensure transparency and the integrity of the evidence presented. Consequently, the court ruled that the direction given to the jury blurred the traditional roles of the judge and jury and constituted a clear legal error.

In response to the Attorney General’s reference, the High Court answered the question "Before considering the probative weight of a confessional statement, is a jury required to determine whether the statement was made voluntarily?" with a definitive "No". The court’s decision clarified the legal framework for assessing confessions and underscored the importance of proper police procedures in obtaining such evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

In answer to the Attorney-General’s Reference Question: “Before considering the probative weight of a confessional statement, is a jury required to determine whether the statement was made voluntarily?”, the question should be answered ‘No’

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Blades, ex parte Attorney General [2001] QCA 384
PARTIES:	R v BLADES, Terri-Ann (respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 20 of 2001 DC No 2464 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Reference under s669A Criminal Code
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	14 September 2001
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 September 2001
JUDGES:	Thomas JA, White and Wilson JJ Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	In answer to the Attorney-General’s Reference Question: “Before considering the probative weight of a confessional statement, is a jury required to determine whether the statement was made voluntarily?”, the question should be answered ‘No’
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – ATTORNEY GENERAL REFERENCE S669A CRIMINAL CODE – EVIDENCE – CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS – STATEMENTS – VOLUNTARY STATEMENTS – INDUCEMENT CALCULATED TO CAUSE UNTRUE CONFESSION – GENERALLY – failure by police during questioning to record all conversations with accused – where accused contested admissibility of confessional evidence recorded on a voir dire because of alleged inducements made during unrecorded conversation – where the confessional evidence was ruled admissible – where trial judge then directed the jury they needed to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the confession was voluntary before they could convict – where such direction blurred the roles of judge and jury – where clear error of law Criminal Code, s669A Attorney General’s Reference (No 1 of 1975) [1975] 1 QB 773, considered Basto v The Queen (1954) 91 CLR 628, followed MacPherson v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 512, followed McKinney v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 468, considered R v D [2000] QCA 201, CA No 401 of 1999, 30 May 2000, considered R v Wakeley [1994] 2 Qd R 196, considered Williams [1981] 4 A Crim R 441, considered
COUNSEL:	B G Campbell for the applicant R A East for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the applicant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent