R v Murray

Case [2011] QSC 170

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Murray [2011] QSC 170

PARTIES:

R
v
MURRAY, Allen James

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 596 of 2010

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

Delivered ex tempore 3 May 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 April 2011; 28 April 2011; 3 May 2011

JUDGE:

Atkinson J

ORDER:

The transcripts of the records of interview with the defendant and the police are to be given to the jury during the playing of those and for them to have with them when they consider their verdict in the jury room.

CATCHWORDS:

EVIDENCE – MECHANICAL RECORDS – where the defendant applied for the jury not to be given transcripts of the records of interviews between himself and police on the grounds that it was unwarranted and would lead to unfairness to him – whether or not the transcripts of the interviews should be given to the jury

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld)

Butera v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vict.) (1987) 164 CLR 180, cited

Williams v R [1982] Tas R 266, cited

COUNSEL:

T A Fuller SC for the prosecution

C J Cassidy for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the prosecution

Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant

  1. The defendant seeks to have transcripts of his various interviews with the police withheld from the jury on the basis that it is unwarranted and would lead to unfairness to him.  Tape recordings of police records of interview are commonly admitted as evidence of the conversations or other sounds recorded on the tape: see Butera v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vict.) (1987) 164 CLR 180.

  1. It is not the tape recording but the sounds produced by playing it over which is the evidence which is admitted.  The tape recording proves what was recorded when that interview took place.  The transcript of such a tape is not independent evidence of the conversation, but an aid to the jury in understanding while we listen to the tape recording.

  1. Mason CJ and Brennan and Deane JJ held in Butera at 188:

“The jury should be instructed that the purpose of admitting a transcript is not to provide independent evidence of the conversation but so as to aid them in understanding what conversation is recorded on the tape, and that they cannot use the transcript as a substitute for the tape if they are not satisfied that the transcript correctly sets out what they heard on the tape.”

  1. The High Court in reaching that decision referred with approval to the words of Everett J in Williams v R [1982] Tas R 266 at 280:

“To deny the jury the benefit of reading with their eyes the same words as they hear with their ears seems to me to put the law into an ill-fitting straightjacket.”

  1. Counsel for the defendant conceded that there is a judicial discretion to give…

Continue reading R v Murray

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Murray [2011] QSC 170
Case
[2011] QSC 170
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Murray was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the defendant sought to exclude transcripts of police interviews from being presented to the jury. The defendant argued that the transcripts were not necessary and would result in prejudice against him. The central issue before the court was whether the jury should be provided with the transcripts of the interviews for their consideration during deliberations. The court was required to balance the defendant's right to a fair trial with the jury's need for accurate information to reach a verdict.

The court considered the principles of fairness in the administration of justice and the importance of transparency in the judicial process. It was noted that providing the jury with transcripts ensures that they have the full context of the evidence when deliberating. The court held that denying the jury access to the transcripts would undermine the integrity of the trial. Furthermore, the court found that the defendant had not demonstrated how the transcripts would lead to unfairness or prejudice, and therefore, the jury should be allowed to have the transcripts during their deliberations.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the jury has all necessary information to make an informed decision. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the transcripts were unnecessary, finding that they provided critical context for the evidence presented. Consequently, the court ordered that the transcripts of the interviews be given to the jury during the playing of the recordings and for them to have with them when they consider their verdict in the jury room. This decision ensures that the jury can make a well-informed decision based on all available evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

The transcripts of the records of interview with the defendant and the police are to be given to the jury during the playing of those and for them to have with them when they consider their verdict in the jury room.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.