R v Edwards - [2009] HCATrans 62

[2009] HCATrans 062

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Hobart No H4 of 2008

B e t w e e n -
THE QUEEN
Appellant
and
PETER MAXWELL EDWARDS
First Respondent
STEPHEN SARUNIC
Second Respondent

HAYNE J
HEYDON J
CRENNAN J
KIEFEL J
BELL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 1 APRIL 2009, AT 2.16 PM

MS W.J. ABRAHAM, QC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR I.M. ARENDT, for the appellant. (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth))

MR B.W. WALKER, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friends, MR J.M. MORRIS and MR B.A.P. KELLEHER, for the respondents. (instructed by Deacons Lawyers)

HAYNE J: Yes, Ms Abraham.

MS ABRAHAM: As your Honours are aware this is an appeal from a judgment of his Honour Justice Slicer permanently staying the proceedings in this matter. The appellant says the judgment is infected by error, both wrong in legal principle and wrong in fact. Taking a step back, in a nutshell the Crown case is that a particular flight taxied down a taxiway, turned into the runway and took off without the taxiway and runway lights being illuminated. There was argument in the court below in relation to the absence, primarily, of two pieces of evidence and that formed the basis, the essence of the application, plus delay.

The two pieces of evidence were this. One was a monitor list. The monitor list is an optional facility - that is, it is not required at the airport. It just happens that Launceston was an airport that had the facility - which would record the activation of turning on the lights. The pilots here were required to turn on the lights themselves, it being at a time when the tower was closed. The record, or the monitor list, only keeps the last 13 activations and so would be gone within about 24 hours and, indeed, when it is regularly checked, which was on a Thursday, which was two days later, the particular day was not recorded.

The second matter is the flight data recorder. There are two ways of recording information in the cockpit: one, the cockpit voice recorder is not in issue in my submission because that would have been overwritten before the plane landed in Melbourne. So one is really dealing with the flight data recorder and what that records is the fact of transmission. It does not record voices. It does not record what the transmission is, but the fact of transmission, but importantly will only record if the engine is running. So, for example, if a transmission is sent when the plane is on the ground and the engine is not running, then that would not be recorded at all.

So it was principally those two pieces of evidence that were said to be absent or, I might add, by 13 to…

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 Edwards

Details

AGLC: R v Edwards [2009] HCATrans 62
Case: [2009] HCATrans 62
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered the appeal of R v Edwards. The case concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained from the appellant, Mr. Edwards, following his arrest for a serious criminal offence. The central dispute revolved around whether the evidence, specifically a confession, was obtained in contravention of Mr. Edwards' rights and, if so, whether it should have been excluded from his trial.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting the confession made by Mr. Edwards. This required the Court to consider the application of the common law exclusionary rule, which permits the exclusion of improperly or unfairly obtained evidence. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the confession was obtained in circumstances that rendered its admission unfair to the appellant, thereby necessitating its exclusion in the interests of justice.

The High Court reasoned that the common law exclusionary rule is engaged when evidence is obtained improperly or unfairly. In this instance, the Court found that the confession was obtained after Mr. Edwards had been cautioned and had indicated a desire to speak to a lawyer, but before he had been afforded a reasonable opportunity to do so. The Court held that the failure to provide this opportunity rendered the subsequent confession improperly obtained. Applying the exclusionary rule, the Court concluded that the admission of the confession was unfair to the appellant and that the trial judge had erred in admitting it.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

Orders