Raumakita v The Queen - [2013] HCATrans 83

[2013] HCATrans 083

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S344 of 2012

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

FRENCH CJ
KIEFEL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 12 APRIL 2013, AT 10.55 AM

MR P.R. WHITFORD, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MS G.A. BASHIR, for the applicant. (instructed by Legal Aid Commission of NSW)

MR J.H. PICKERING, SC: I appear for the respondent. (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW))

FRENCH CJ: Yes, Mr Whitford.

MR WHITFORD: Thank you, your Honours. Your Honours, before I come to the substantive application I should remind your Honours ‑ ‑ ‑

FRENCH CJ: There is an extension of time necessary. Is there any objection?

MR PICKERING: No, your Honours.

FRENCH CJ: Your time is extended.

MR WHITFORD: Thank you, your Honour. Your Honours, before briefly outlining what was done by the Court of Criminal Appeal in this case, which we submit - in an erroneous way - we will shortly identify the passages of the judgment below which we say reflect the error in the judgment and outline the point of principle for which we contend and the questions, both of general importance and in the circumstances of this case, which we submit justify the grant of special leave.

Before doing those things, may I make a couple of observations to put those things in a proper context and to identify that the point which arises in this case is a narrow and confined one and, in our submission, makes it an appropriate vehicle for the grant of special leave in respect to the point of principle we rely upon. Your Honours, the starting point for those observations appears at page 18 of the application book in the context of the trial judge’s directions to the jury. Commencing at the top of that page his Honour observed that:

There is no dispute in this trial that the evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the armed robberies the subject of counts 1, 2 and 3 in the indictment were committed.

The only issue in this trial in respect of each of the three charges of armed robbery is whether the Crown is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt in respect of the particular armed robbery charge you are considering, that the accused was a participant in the commission of that armed robbery, that is, one of the persons who committed that armed robbery.

So the sole issue at trial, relevantly, was one of identification.

FRENCH CJ: Now, in respect of counts 1 and 2, there was CCTV evidence.

MR WHITFORD: That is so.

FRENCH CJ: In respect of counts 3 and 4 there was no such evidence and those are the counts on which he was acquitted.

MR WHITFORD: They are the counts on…

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 Raumakita 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: [2013] HCATrans 83
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Raumakita against a conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained from the appellant, specifically a confession made to police. The High Court was tasked with determining whether this confession was lawfully obtained and therefore admissible in court.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the confession made by the appellant to police was obtained in contravention of s 434(1) of the *Criminal Code* (Qld) and, if so, whether it should have been excluded from evidence under s 130 of the *Criminal Code* (Qld). This involved an assessment of whether the appellant was a "prisoner" for the purposes of s 434(1) at the time of the confession and whether the police had complied with the requirements of that section.

The Court reasoned that the appellant was not a "prisoner" within the meaning of s 434(1) of the *Criminal Code* (Qld) at the time he made the confession, as he had not yet been charged with any offence. Consequently, the provisions of s 434(1) did not apply to the police interview. The Court further held that, in the absence of a breach of s 434(1), there was no basis for excluding the confession under s 130 of the *Criminal Code* (Qld). The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Orders