R v Wilson - [1997] QCA 265

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1997] QCA 265
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 182 of 1997.

Brisbane

[R v. Wilson]

T H E Q U E E N

VINCENT PATRICK WILSON

Appellant

___________________________________________________________________

Macrossan C.J.
Pincus J.A.
Byrne J.

_____________________________________________________________________

Judgment delivered 29 August 1997

Judgment of the Court

_____________________________________________________________________

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED

_____________________________________________________________________

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - manslaughter - appeal against conviction -

whether confessional evidence in interview with police should have been rejected on grounds of unreliability and lack of voluntariness - appellant under the influence of alcohol when interviewed - whether trial judge should have excluded evidence of interview on basis that police did not observe rules for interrogation of Aboriginal persons - Queensland Police Service Operational Procedures Manual para. 2.14.11. Anunga (1976) 11 A.L.R. 412

Counsel:	Mr A Rafter for the appellant. Mrs L Clare for the respondent.
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant. Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent.
Hearing date:	23 July 1997
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 29 August 1997

The appellant was convicted after a trial at Townsville of manslaughter, on the basis that he unlawfully killed one Pompey. There is a notice of appeal against conviction which contains two grounds, the only one pressed being that the judge should not have admitted evidence of a conversation between the appellant and police, during which the appellant made incriminating statements.

Pompey was, on the Crown evidence, killed as a result of being punched and kicked by the appellant. Pompey was attacked on 7 November 1995 and on the following morning one Brown spoke to the appellant about Pompey, who was then said to be in a coma; the appellant said to Brown, "I kicked him in the head and I kicked him in the guts. I think I killed him." On that same day the police had two conversations with the appellant; that which is relevant to the ground being discussed occurred at the office of the Townsville CIB about 10.30 pm. A Ms Douglas, a niece of the appellant, was present.

After evidence was taken in a voir dire the primary judge declined to exclude evidence of the interview at the police station; his Honour had been asked to do so on the grounds of lack of voluntariness, unfairness and unreliability. The judge treated the appellant as an unsophisticated man, not well educated, and one who spoke in what the judge understood to be Aboriginal English. His Honour remarked that this was "not easy to understand, either on the tape, which may be a product of the quality of the tape . . . or even when giving evidence before me". The judge accepted that the appellant was to some extent affected by alcohol at the time he was interviewed. His Honour found that the answers given in the interview were coherent and sensible and given without prompting, to the extent that "[the appellant] purported to have a recall, and included detail".

It…

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 Wilson

Details

AGLC: R v Wilson [1997] QCA 265
Case: [1997] QCA 265
Decision Date: 29/08/1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of R v Wilson involved Vincent Patrick Wilson, who was appealing his conviction for manslaughter. Wilson was found guilty of unlawfully killing Pompey. The appeal focused on the admissibility of a confession made by Wilson during an interview with police, which was central to the conviction. The key issue was whether the trial judge should have excluded the confession on the grounds of unreliability, lack of voluntariness, and failure to adhere to the guidelines for interrogation of Aboriginal persons as set out in the Queensland Police Service Operational Procedures Manual.

The Court of Appeal examined the grounds for the exclusion of the confession. They found that while there was some difficulty in understanding Wilson’s statements due to his limited education and the influence of alcohol, the core content of his confession was reliable and voluntary. The Court emphasised that Wilson had demonstrated an understanding of his rights, as evidenced by his decision to stop answering questions when he chose. Additionally, the Court concluded that the police did not breach the guidelines in a way that necessitated the exclusion of the confession. The guidelines, while important, were not strictly binding and the Court found no compelling reason to exclude the evidence based on the minor procedural lapses.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision to admit the confession, finding that it was both reliable and voluntary, and that the procedural guidelines were not breached in a manner that required exclusion of the evidence. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed.

Orders