Criminal Law—Trial—Witnesses—Credibility—Direction to jury to take into account interest of witness in outcome of trial—Accused having greatest interest of all—Whether misdirection—Presumption of innocence.
Decision
MASON C.J., BRENNAN, DEANE, TOOHEY AND McHUGH JJ. Pursuant to the grant of special leave, Robert Raymond Lloyd Robinson appeals against an order of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Queensland dismissing his appeal against a conviction for rape. The question in the appeal is whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury that, in considering the credibility of a witness, one of the tests to be applied is the interest which the witness had in the outcome of the case and that the greater the interest the more carefully the witness's evidence should be scrutinised. The appellant contends that the jury would perceive that he had a greater interest than any other witness in the outcome of the case and that the effect of the direction was that his evidence had to be scrutinised more carefully than the evidence of any other witness, including the complainant who alleged that he had raped her.
2. In 1987, the complainant was studying for a Master's degree at the University of Queensland. At about 7.00 p.m. on 17 November 1987, pursuant to a prior arrangement with the appellant, she went to a motel unit where she met the appellant for the purpose of discussing Aboriginal religions with him. The appellant is an Aboriginal. The complainant was studying Aboriginal religions as a topic for her Master's degree. The appellant purchased two take-away meals which were consumed in the motel unit together with some glasses of wine. Discussion between the appellant and the complainant continued until about 8.50 p.m. when, according to the complainant's evidence, she announced that she had to leave as she had arranged to meet her boyfriend. The complainant alleged that the appellant prevented her from leaving and, after a struggle and threats by the appellant, she consented to have sexual intercourse with him. The Crown alleged that the consent was obtained by force and the complainant's fear of further bodily harm. Evidence that the complainant had an injury to the face between the upper lip and the nose, an injury inside the lip and bruising to her right arm was left to the jury as corroboration of her claim that she had been raped. The appellant, who gave evidence, claimed that the consent to sexual intercourse was freely given.
3. Early in his summing up, the trial judge instructed the jury that there were a number of ways in which they could test the credibility of a witness. After referring to two "tests", his Honour said: "Still on the subject of witnesses, you might think that some of them have an interest in the outcome of this case. Indeed you might think that one witness above all others has a…
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 Robinson v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Robinson v The Queen [1991] HCA 38
Case
[1991] HCA 38
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered the appeal of Robinson against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained through a search of the appellant's property, which was conducted without a warrant. The appellant argued that the evidence was unlawfully obtained and should have been excluded from trial.
The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the evidence obtained from the warrantless search was admissible, notwithstanding the absence of a warrant. This required the Court to consider the principles governing the admission of illegally or improperly obtained evidence in criminal proceedings, particularly in light of the common law and any relevant statutory provisions. The Court also had to determine the scope of police powers to conduct searches in the absence of a warrant.
The High Court held that the evidence obtained from the warrantless search was inadmissible. The Court reasoned that the search was conducted without lawful authority and therefore infringed upon the appellant's rights. Applying the principle that evidence obtained in contravention of the law should generally be excluded, the Court found that the admission of this evidence would be an affront to the administration of justice. The Court emphasised the importance of upholding the rule of law and protecting individual liberties against unlawful state intrusion.
The appeal was allowed, the conviction was quashed, and a new trial was ordered.