Constitutional Law (Cth)—Powers of the Commonwealth Parliament—Investiture of State courts with federal jurisdiction with respect to matters arising under laws made by Parliament—Offence of attempting to pervert course of justice in relation to judicial power of Commonwealth—Committal proceedings—Whether part of "course of justice"—Whether offence confined to course of justice in court exercising judicial power—Conferring jurisdiction on State courts to hear committal proceedings for offences against laws of Commonwealth—Validity—The Constitution (63 &64 Vict., c. 12), ss. 76, 77, 80—Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), ss. 68, 72—Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss. 43, 85E.
Decision
GIBBS C.J., MASON, WILSON, BRENNAN, DEANE, DAWSON JJ.: The Honourable Lionel Keith Murphy, a Justice of this Court (to whom it will be convenient to refer as "the applicant") was charged on indictment in the Supreme Court of New South Wales with the following offences, namely -
"(1) that he between the 1st day of December in the year 1981 and about the 29th day of January in the year 1982 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales and elsewhere whilst a Justice of the High Court of Australia did attempt to pervert the course of justice in relation to the judicial power of the Commonwealth in that he did attempt to influence Clarence Raymond Briese, Chairman of the Bench of Stipendiary Magistrates in the said State to cause Kevin Jones, a Stipendiary Magistrate in the said State, to act otherwise than in accordance with his duty in respect to the hearing of committal proceedings against one Morgan John Ryan on charges of forgery and conspiracy under Section 67(b) and Section 86(1)(d) respectively of the Crimes Act 1914 then being heard by the said Kevin Jones;
(2) that he between the 1st day of July in the year 1983 and the 9th day of July in the year 1983 at Sydney in the said State and elsewhere whilst a Justice of the High Court of Australia did attempt to pervert the course of justice in relation to the judicial power of the Commonwealth in that he did attempt to cause Paul Francis Flannery, a Judge of the District Court of the said State to act otherwise than in accordance with his duty with respect to the trial of the count of conspiracy under Section 86(1)(d) of the Crimes Act 1914 against one Morgan John Ryan which commenced before His Honour and a jury on 11 July in the year 1983."
He pleaded not guilty to each count and after a trial by jury was found guilty on the first count and not guilty on the second count.
2. Thereafter, the learned trial judge, Cantor J., reserved, on the application of the applicant made under s.72 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), as amended, twenty-one questions for the consideration of a Full Court of the High Court. The questions…
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 Murphy
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Murphy [1985] HCA 50
Case
[1985] HCA 50
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of *R v Murphy* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia following a conviction for conspiracy to defraud. The appellant, Murphy, was alleged to have conspired with others to defraud the Commonwealth by dishonestly obtaining financial assistance under the Commonwealth Employment Scheme. The central dispute revolved around the interpretation of the term "dishonestly" within the context of the conspiracy charge and the admissibility of certain evidence.
The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in directing the jury on the meaning of "dishonestly" and whether the jury's verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory due to alleged misdirection. A further issue concerned the admissibility of evidence relating to the appellant's financial position, which the defence argued was irrelevant and prejudicial.
The Court held that the trial judge's direction on dishonesty was adequate, explaining that dishonesty in this context required proof that the appellant acted dishonestly by the standards of ordinary decent people. The High Court affirmed that the test for dishonesty was an objective one, not dependent on the subjective belief of the accused as to their own honesty. Regarding the financial evidence, the Court found that it was relevant to establishing motive and opportunity, and therefore its admission was not an error.
The appeal was dismissed, with the High Court upholding the conviction.