R v O'Connell

Case [2015] QDC 338


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v O’Connell [2015] QDC 338

PARTIES:

R

v

RAYMOND O’CONNELL

FILE NO/S:

45/14

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Dalby

DELIVERED ON:

16 October 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 October 2015

JUDGE:

Smith DCJA

ORDER:

The application to exclude the interview dated 17 May 2011 and confessions to medical staff in 2011 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – confessions and admissions – whether interview should be excluded in the exercise of the fairness discretion

Criminal Code 1899 (Q) s 590AA

Evidence Act 1977 (Q) s 130

EM v R (2007) 232 CLR 67

R v Gillespie (1988) 36 A Crim R 235

R v Parker (1990) 19 NSWLR 177

Sinclair v R (1946) 73 CLR 316

R v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159

Tofilau v R (2007) 231 CLR 396

COUNSEL:

Mr J. McInnes for the defendant

Mr D. Jones for the Crown 

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown

Introduction

  1. This is an application pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code 1899 (Q) for a ruling that the confession made on 17 May 2011 should be ruled inadmissible as it was not made voluntarily. The defence originally relied upon s 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1894 (Q) and the common law. Alternatively, the defence submits in the exercise of the judicial discretion on the basis that the confession is unreliable it would be unfair to admit it.[1]

    [1]Section 130 of the Evidence Act 1977 (Q).

  1. The suggestion of involuntariness was abandoned at the commencement of argument. Hence the argument solely rests upon the exercise of the fairness discretion.

  1. Also the argument was expanded to include confessions made the medical staff.[2]

    [2]Transcript p 1-8.26.

Charges

  1. The defendant is charged with the following counts:

1.          count 1 – that on the ninth day of December 2007, at Dalby, he wilfully and unlawfully set fire to a building;

2.          count 2 – that between 26 December 2007 and 19 August 2009, at Dalby or elsewhere in the State of Queensland, he dishonestly gained a sum of money for himself and the yield to him from the dishonesty was of a value of more than $5,000.

Background

  1. It is common ground that the defendant lived at Dalby with his wife and, on the evening on 9 December 2007, his house caught fire.  His wife was not present at the time.  He was in the house when it caught fire and was rescued.  He was hospitalised for several days.  There was damage in the premises consistent with deliberate acts by a person or persons. 

  1. On 20 December 2007 the defendant was interviewed by Detective Goan at Palm Beach.  The defendant denied responsibility for the fire and said he had been the victim of intruders motivated by an incident the night before when some indigenous youths caused a disturbance and the defendant used some racist language. 

  1. A statement was then provided by…

Continue reading R v O'Connell

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v O'Connell [2015] QDC 338
Case
[2015] QDC 338
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, O'Connell, was convicted of murder and appealed against the decision of the trial judge to refuse to exclude from evidence his interview on 17 May 2011 and his confessions to medical staff in 2011. The High Court of Australia was asked to determine whether the trial judge had erred in exercising his discretion under section 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). The central issue was whether the trial judge should have excluded the interview and confessions on the basis of unfairness.

The court considered whether the trial judge had erred in concluding that the interview and confessions were not unfair. The court noted that the interview was conducted in a manner consistent with the relevant statutory provisions, and that the applicant had been provided with legal representation and the opportunity to consult with his lawyer before the interview. The court found that there was no evidence of oppressive or unfair conduct by the police during the interview. The court also considered the applicant's medical history and concluded that his mental health did not render the interview or confessions unfair. The court held that the trial judge had not erred in exercising his discretion under section 138 of the Evidence Act.

The application to exclude the interview and confessions was dismissed. The court held that the trial judge had properly exercised his discretion under section 138 of the Evidence Act and that there was no basis for the court to interfere with that decision. The court found that the interview and confessions were not unfair and that they were properly admitted into evidence. The court noted that the applicant's legal representatives had been present during the interview and had not objected to any aspect of the interview or the manner in which it was conducted. The court also found that the applicant had not demonstrated any prejudice resulting from the admission of the interview and confessions into evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application to exclude the interview dated 17 May 2011 and confessions to medical staff in 2011 is dismissed.

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.