R v Faumuina - [2004] QSC 264

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

[2004] QSC 264

FRYBERG J
Indictment No 97 of 2004
THE QUEEN
v.
ARTHUR FAALII FAUMUINA
BRISBANE
..DATE 17/08/2004
RULING

WARNING: The publication of information or details likely to lead to the identification of persons in some proceedings is a criminal offence. This is so particularly in relation to the identification of children who are involved in criminal proceedings or proceedings for their protection under the Child Protection Act 1999, and complainants in criminal sexual offences, but is not limited to those categories. You may wish to seek legal advice before giving others access to the details of any person named in these proceedings.

17082004 D.1 T1/RDT (Fryberg J)

HIS HONOUR: The trial of Arthur Faumuina was listed to 1

commence today. This is the second time the trial has been
listed to commence. On the previous occasion it was adjourned
at the request of the Crown in order to obtain further
evidence from a medical practitioner who had treated the
deceased. That request was supported by the defence and at
that time the defence informed the Court that it was ready to
proceed. 10

Yesterday the defence gave the Crown notice of its intention to apply to the Court for a ruling pursuant to section 590AA of the Criminal Code that part of the evidence of Senior

20

Constable Martin James Arnold should be excluded. An outline of the argument was provided to the Crown and the application was brought on this morning before the jury was empanelled.
30
I should say at once that it is most unfortunate that an

application of this nature should be made so belatedly. The lateness of the application has resulted in the loss of most of the first morning of the trial, has required that the jury
panel be kept waiting for this time and has been unnecessary, 40
since the matter could have been dealt with and should have
been dealt with much earlier.
In saying that, I am not intending to cast aspersions on
Mr Devereaux, counsel for the defence. Mr Devereaux frankly 50

told me that the point - particularly in the form in which it
was ultimately argued, which was not wholly included in the
outline of argument provided to the Crown yesterday - had only
17082004 D.1 T5/SBH (Fryberg J) 2 60

recently occurred to him; but the lateness is, I think, 1
indicative of a systemic failure by which counsel, often on
both sides of the record, are given insufficient time to
prepare for criminal trials in this Court. Why such time is
unavailable - and I have seen it on many occasions, both on

the prosecution side as well as on the defence side - I am not
in a position to state. No doubt there are multiple causes,
but one seems to be the lack of resources devoted to
preparation of criminal trials. One might have thought that
trials for homicide were among the most serious in…

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 Faumuina

Details

AGLC: R v Faumuina [2004] QSC 264
Case: [2004] QSC 264
Decision Date: 17/08/2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Queensland heard the case of The Queen v. Arthur Faalii Faumuina, where the defendant was charged with an offence related to the death of an individual who hit his head on a concrete path outside the Palm Beach Surf Club. The legal issue before the Court was whether a confession made by the defendant to a police officer should be admitted as evidence, given that the conversation was not recorded in the manner prescribed by the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000. The defence argued that the confession should be excluded pursuant to section 590AA of the Criminal Code, as it did not comply with the recording requirements outlined in the Act.

The Court considered whether section 266 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 could be used to admit the police notes despite non-compliance with the recording provisions. Section 266 permits the Court to admit a record of questioning or confession in evidence if, in the special circumstances of the case, admission of the evidence would be in the interests of justice. The Court found that section 266 was not intended to permit the admission of evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible, even if the requirements of subsection (2) were met. Instead, it was designed to provide a limited exemption to the operation of sections 263 and 264. Consequently, the Court upheld the application and directed that the evidence in question be excluded from the prosecution case.

Orders