CANBERRA, 7 February 1995 #DATE 23:8:1995, ADELAIDE
Matter No. A38 Counsel for the Appellant M.S. Weinberg QC and D.J. Chapman Solicitors for the Appellant: M. Rozenes QC, Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Counsel for the Respondent S.W. Tilmouth QC and Byrnes M.A. Perry Solicitor for the Respondent Stephen Haarsma Byrnes
Matter No. A39 Counsel for the Appellant M.S. Weinberg QC and D.J. Chapman Solicitor for the Appellant: M. Rozenes QC, Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Counsel for the Respondent K.V. Borick and Hopwood G.B. Hevey Solicitor for the Respondent Hume Taylor and Co Hopwood
Matter No. A17 Solicitor for the Applicant: Stephen Haarsma
Solicitor for the Respondent: M. Rozenes QC, Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Orders
Matter No. A38 of 1994 1. Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside the order of the South Australian Court of Criminal Appeal quashing the conviction on the count based on s. 229(4) of the Companies (South Australia) Code.
3. Remit the matter to the South Australian Court of Criminal Appeal to be dealt with in accordance with the reasons for judgment of this Court.
Matter No. A39 of 1994 1. Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside the order of the South Australian Court of Criminal Appeal quashing the conviction.
3. Remit the matter to the South Australian Court of Criminal Appeal to be dealt with in accordance with the reasons for judgment of this Court.
Matter No. A17 of 1994 The application for special leave to appeal to this Court is stood over generally.
Decisions
BRENNAN, DEANE, TOOHEY AND GAUDRON JJ Jeffcott Investments Limited ("Jeffcott"), a public company listed on the Adelaide Stock Exchange, was in need of cash to repay its borrowings. By early December 1988 it owed the Normandy group of companies about $4.2m. and on 15 December 1988 a loan by Mr and Mrs Douglas-Hill ($2m. plus interest) was to fall due for repayment. Jeffcott's directors, including Mr Byrnes and Dr Hopwood (the present respondents), resolved that Jeffcott should make an issue of $1 convertible notes to its shareholders. If fully subscribed, the issue would raise slightly more than $6m. which could be used to repay these debts. The underwriter to the issue, Jarden Morgan Australia Ltd., required Jeffcott to procure a sub-underwriter for 100% of the issue. This appeal relates to the steps which Byrnes and Hopwood took to satisfy Jarden Morgan's requirements and to ensure the success of the issue of the convertible notes.
Background Facts 2. The following summary is derived from the findings of fact made by the trial judge and adopted by the Court of Criminal Appeal.
3. On 30 June 1988, Jeffcott (through a wholly-owned subsidiary) had acquired either directly or through an intermediate company, Ausmintec Limited, a significant shareholding in Magnacrete Limited. Byrnes and Hopwood were appointed to the board of Magnacrete in July 1988 and,…
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 Byrnes
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Byrnes [1995] HCA 1
Case
[1995] HCA 1
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered the appeal of R v Byrnes, where the appellant had been convicted of murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained from the appellant following his arrest.
The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of statements made by the appellant to police after his arrest, which were alleged to have been obtained in contravention of the Judges' Rules. Specifically, the court had to determine if these statements were involuntary or improperly obtained, thereby rendering them inadmissible under the common law.
The High Court, in a joint judgment, affirmed the principles governing the admissibility of confessional evidence. Their Honours held that for a confession to be admissible, it must be voluntary, meaning it was not induced by threats, promises, or other improper pressure. The court examined the circumstances surrounding the appellant's statements, considering the length of detention, the nature of questioning, and whether the appellant was cautioned. Applying these principles, the court found that the statements were not rendered inadmissible by reason of being involuntary or improperly obtained, and therefore the trial judge had not erred in admitting them.