Raju v The Queen - [2011] HCATrans 299

[2011] HCATrans 299

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S299 of 2011

B e t w e e n -
KANIAPPA RAJU
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

GUMMOW J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 28 OCTOBER 2011, AT 11.48 AM

MR P.D. LANGE: May it please, your Honours, I appear on behalf of the applicant. (instructed by Matouk Joyner Solicitors)

MR D.U. ARNOTT, SC: May it please your Honours, I appear for the respondent with MS M.L. RABSCH. (instructed by Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW))

GUMMOW J: Yes, Mr Lange.

MR LANGE: Your Honours, I require an extension of time. I understand it is not opposed by the respondents.

GUMMOW J: Very well.

MR LANGE: Thank you. Your Honours, it will be accepted right at the outset of my submissions that this Court has on numerous occasions said that an applicant who contends that a jury’s verdict was unreasonable bears a heavy burden when applying for special leave to appeal. In our submission, those comments, of course, applicable to a suggestion that a Court of Criminal Appeal simply erred in the results are, of course, to be inferred quite naturally, but it is our submission that this case raises not simply the issue of whether the Court of Criminal Appeal erred in its ultimate conclusion but we say there is an issue of general public importance in the manner in which the Court of Criminal Appeal arrived at its decision.

Before taking your Honours to the summing‑up of the learned trial judge and contrasting it with the approach adopted by the Court of Criminal Appeal could I perhaps make some introductory general remarks which will illustrate what we say is this general point of concern? In doing so I would ask the Court to bear in mind that when considering ground 1, that is, the ground of unreasonableness, the Court of Criminal Appeal did not at any stage make reference to the intention of the applicants or how that intention might be proved. Indeed, your Honours will have noted the comments by the Court of Criminal Appeal that this was an unusual case, nobody having been discovered, there being no objective evidence as to the manner in which the death was said to have occurred.

GUMMOW J: Now, what do you say about the respondent’s point at page 175, namely, that this is hypothetical really?

MR LANGE: Well, with respect, it is not, your Honours, and I say that for this ‑ ‑ ‑

GUMMOW J: In any event, it was not raised in the Court of Criminal Appeal.

MR LANGE: Your Honour, I have one principal response to that argument, and it is this. It was raised certainly at trial by counsel for the accused. That appeared both in counsel’s closing address and also in the summing‑up of her Honour Justice Bell. Moreover,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Raju v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] HCATrans 299
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Raju against a conviction for murder. The dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence during Raju's trial, specifically statements made by the appellant to police.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting the appellant's statements into evidence, given the circumstances under which they were obtained. This involved an examination of the principles governing the admissibility of confessional material, particularly where there are allegations of unfairness or impropriety in the manner of its procurement.

Gummow and Heydon JJ held that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the statements. Their Honours applied the principles established in cases such as *R v Swaffield* and *DPP (NSW) v Smith*, which require a balancing of the probative value of confessional evidence against its prejudicial effect. The Court found that the circumstances of the interviews, while not ideal, did not render the statements involuntary or unfairly obtained to the extent that their admission would have occasioned a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Orders