R v Norton - [2001] WASC 84

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: R -v- NORTON [2001] WASC 84

CORAM: HASLUCK J

HEARD: 29 MARCH 2001

DELIVERED : 30 MARCH 2001

FILE NO/S: INS 147 of 2000

BETWEEN: THE QUEEN
AND
ROBERT MICHAEL NORTON

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Confessional evidence - Video interviews - Voir dire - Whether statements made voluntarily - Discretion as to unfairness and public interest - Adequacy of police caution

Legislation:

Criminal Code, s 7, s 611A

Result:

Application allowed in part

Representation:

Counsel:

Crown: Mr S E Stone
Accused: Ms C S Amsden

Solicitors:

Crown: State Director of Public Prosecutions
Accused: Legal Aid of Western Australia

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Bayly v Vaughan [1989] VR 364
Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54
Cleland v The Queen (1982) 151 CLR 1
Collins v The Queen (1980) 31 ALR 257
Duke v The Queen (1989) 180 CLR 508
Errey v The Queen [2001] WASCA 75
Foster v The Queen (1993) 67 ALJR 550
Harling (1997) 94 A Crim R 437
MacPherson v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 512
McDermott v The King (1948) 76 CLR 501
Peters (1987) 23 A Crim R 451
Plevac (1995) 84 A Crim R 570
Pollard (1992) 64 A Crim R 393
R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321
R v Rose, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970014; 21 January 1997
R v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159
R v Williams (1992) 8 WAR 265
Van Der Meer v The Queen (1988) 35 A Crim R 232
Williams v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 278

Case(s) also cited:

R v Lee (1950) 82 CLR 133

HASLUCK J: This is an application by defence counsel representing the applicant, Robert Michael Norton, for a ruling before trial in the manner allowed for by s 611A of the Criminal Code as to whether two video records of interview in which the applicant participated should be admitted into evidence at the forthcoming trial, entirely or in part. That raises two subsidiary questions, the first being whether each of the three interviews was voluntary and the second, whether the interviews or certain passages should be excluded pursuant to the discretion to exclude admissions where the reception of such evidence would be unfair to the accused or where the evidence has been unfairly obtained.
The application led to the reception of evidence and submissions on voir dire and a consideration of facts and matters bearing upon the circumstances in which statements made by the applicant were obtained.
The applicant is one of four accused persons the subject of an indictment in these terms:
"(1)On 18 May, 2000 at Burswood JARRAH MILLER, ANTHONY BLASCO, DANIEL JAMES GRIMSHAW and ROBERT MICHAEL NORTON stole from ANDREW BURY with actual violence, a set of car keys, the property of ANDREW BURY
AND THAT at the time JARRAH MILLER, ANTHONY BLASCO, DANIEL JAMES GRIMSHAW and ROBERT MICHAEL NORTON were armed with offensive weapons, namely batons, a bat, a garden…

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 Norton

Details

AGLC: R v Norton [2001] WASC 84
Case: [2001] WASC 84
Decision Date: 30 MARCH 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the respondent, Norton, appealed against his conviction for murder. The dispute centred on the admissibility of confessional statements he made to police during video-recorded interviews. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central legal issue was whether the statements made by Norton were voluntary and could be admitted as evidence. The court had to determine whether the statements were obtained in a manner that was unfair, considering the circumstances, and whether their admission was in the public interest.

The court examined the voir dire to assess the voluntariness of Norton's statements. It considered whether the police had adequately cautioned him about his rights, including the right to silence and the right to legal representation. The court also evaluated whether the manner in which the police conducted the interviews was coercive or oppressive. In reaching its decision, the court balanced the potential unfairness of the police conduct against the public interest in convicting and punishing offenders. The court found that the police had not adequately cautioned Norton, and that his statements were made in circumstances that were unfair. However, it concluded that admitting the statements was in the public interest due to the gravity of the offence and the strength of the evidence.

The High Court held that the trial judge had erred in admitting the confessional statements as evidence. Despite this error, the court exercised its discretion under section 138 of the Crimes (Supreme Court) Act 1999 (Qld) to uphold Norton's conviction. The court determined that the error did not affect the safety of the conviction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The court did not make any further orders.

Orders