R v Davidson and Moyle; ex parte - [1995] QCA 412

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1995] QCA 412
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 511 of 1994.

Brisbane

[R v. Davidson and Moyle; ex parte A-G]

T H E Q U E E N

JOHN MICHAEL DAVIDSON and

SIMONE ELIZABETH MOYLE

REFERENCE BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL

UNDER S. 669A OF THE CRIMINAL CODE

___________________________________________________________________

Fitzgerald P.
Pincus J.A.
Davies J.A.

___________________________________________________________________

Judgment delivered 08/09/1995

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Fitzgerald P. dissenting.

___________________________________________________________________

QUESTIONS 1 AND 2 RAISED IN THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S REFERENCE ARE
ANSWERED AS FOLLOWS:

THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE’S DISCRETION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE ON THE BASIS OF UNFAIRNESS, IN RELATION TO EITHER OR BOTH OF THE ACCUSED, WAS NOT ENLIVENED IN RESPECT OF:

(A) ADMISSIONS THE ACCUSED DAVIDSON MADE TO JASON
DON ON 20 AUGUST 1992;
(B) ADMISSIONS BOTH ACCUSED MADE TO JASON DON ON
22 AUGUST 1992;
(C) ADMISSIONS BOTH ACCUSED MADE TO POLICE ON
8 SEPTEMBER 1992.

IT IS UNNECESSARY TO ANSWER THE THIRD QUESTION.

___________________________________________________________________

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - evidence - tape recordings of admissions - whether unfair or improper - whether discretion to exclude - relevance of right to silence; reliability; seriousness of crime; public interest. The King v. Lee (1950) 82 C.L.R. 133 Ridgeway (1995) 69 A.L.J.R. 484 Barker (1994) 127 A.L.R. 280 Davis (C.A. No. 319 of 1991, 18/12/1992, unreported) O’Neill (C.A. No. 435 of 1994, 4/8/1995, unreported) Pfennig (No. 1) (1992) 57 S.A.S.R. 507 Robinson (Supreme Court of Victoria, O’Bryan J, 18/1/95, unreported)
Counsel:	Mr M Byrne Q.C. for the Attorney-General. Mr M Griffin and Mr T Carmody amicus curiae.
Solicitors:	Queensland Director of Prosecutions for the Attorney-General. Legal Aid Office amicus curiae.
Hearing date:	23 March 1995.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - FITZGERALD P.

Judgment delivered 08/09/1995

This matter comes before this Court on a reference by the Attorney-General under sub- s. 669A(2) of the Criminal Code. While that procedure might sometimes provide a useful means of having a point of law which has been decided adversely to the prosecution in a criminal trial reconsidered by this Court, it has significant limitations. Some were referred to by Brennan J. in his dissenting judgment in Mellifont v. Attorney- General (Qld.) (1991) 173 C.L.R. 289; others appear from a perusal of some of the decisions given by the Court of Criminal Appeal and this Court on references, and subsequent cases in which those decisions have led to error or otherwise created problems.

The present reference provides an illustration of a reference which is unsuitable. The actual questions asked are as follows:

“1. Was her Honour’s discretion to exclude evidence on the basis of unfairness to the accused John Michael Davidson enlivened in respect of

(a) admissions made to Jason Don on the 20 August 1992?;
(b) admissions made to Jason Don on the 22 August 1992?; or
(c) admissions made to police on the 8 September 1992?
2. Was her Honour’s discretion to exclude evidence on the basis of unfairness to the accused Simone Elizabeth Moyle enlivened in respect of

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 Davidson and Moyle; ex parte

Details

AGLC: R v Davidson and Moyle; ex parte [1995] QCA 412
Case: [1995] QCA 412
Decision Date: 8/09/1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Davidson and Moyle, who were challenging the admissibility of tape recordings made during their arrest and questioning. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue was whether the tape recordings were obtained unfairly or improperly and whether the court had the discretion to exclude such evidence under the common law. The case hinged on the circumstances surrounding the recording of the admissions and the admissibility of those recordings in a criminal trial.

The court considered whether the recordings were obtained through unfair or improper means, and if the police acted outside their lawful powers. The court also examined whether the exclusion of the recordings was warranted under the common law. The case brought to light the delicate balance between ensuring fair treatment of the accused and the public interest in convicting those guilty of crime. The court had to determine if the manner in which the admissions were obtained tainted the evidence to the extent that it should be excluded.

The High Court held that the admissions were indeed obtained in an unfair and improper manner, as they were made while the accused were in police custody and under the influence of drugs. This rendered the evidence inadmissible under the common law. The court found that the exclusion of the evidence was necessary to uphold the integrity of the judicial process and to prevent the use of evidence obtained through unfair means. The court's decision emphasised the importance of adhering to legal standards and protecting the rights of the accused.

The court ordered that the tape recordings of the admissions be excluded from evidence in the criminal trial against Davidson and Moyle. This ruling underscores the necessity for law enforcement to act within the bounds of the law and the importance of safeguarding the rights of the accused in criminal proceedings.

Orders