MASON C.J. This application for special leave to appeal raises a variety of questions, including important questions concerning the directions with respect to intent to be given by the trial judge to the jury on a trial for murder as defined by s.18 of the Crimes Act 1900 (N.S.W.) ("the Act"). The application for special leave is brought from orders of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal dismissing an appeal by the applicant from a conviction of murder and refusing leave to appeal against the sentence imposed upon him of imprisonment for life with no non-parole period. A short summary of the relevant facts will suffice as the reasons for judgment prepared by Deane and Dawson JJ. set out in detail the circumstances in which the offence is alleged to have taken place.

2. The deceased, Kelly Louise Healey, died in the early hours of 16 November 1986 when she fell from the bathroom window of the sixth floor flat in which she and the applicant had lived for the previous four months. How the deceased came to fall and just what part the applicant played in the events which precipitated the deceased's fall were central to the issues which the jury were called upon to determine at the trial.

3. The relationship between the applicant and the deceased in the days immediately preceding her death had been far from serene. There had been a serious quarrel between them which led to the deceased moving out of the flat and staying with a friend, Ms Boyd, for three days. She returned to the flat on the evening of 15 November and the applicant arrived home some hours later. A violent argument ensued. The applicant admitted to punching the deceased in the face, shaking her and pulling her hair. There was other evidence that pointed to a greater degree of violence, for there was blood in various parts of the flat apart from the bathroom. The deceased's body was naked when found in the street and her hair was wet. This, it was said, was consistent with the hypothesis that the deceased had undressed and taken a shower.

4. There was evidence of a forcible entry into the bathroom, which was extremely confined, and of a struggle there. The deceased's blood was found splashed in the bathroom and throughout the flat. There was a chipped glass ashtray in the washbasin as well as hair and glass chips, evidently from the ashtray, on the bathroom floor. There were gouge marks in the bathroom wall which, according to evidence, were consistent with an arc created by someone swinging his or her right arm while holding an object such as the ashtray. The location of these marks on the wall was…

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 Royall v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Royall v The Queen [1991] HCA 27
Case: [1991] HCA 27
Decision Date: 25 June 1991

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered the appeal of Mr. Royall against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of a confession made by Mr. Royall to police, which he alleged was involuntary. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge had erred in admitting this confession into evidence.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had correctly applied the principles governing the admissibility of confessions, specifically the rule that confessions obtained by undue pressure or coercion are inadmissible. This involved an examination of the circumstances surrounding Mr. Royall's confession and whether those circumstances rendered it involuntary in law. The court also considered the proper test to be applied by a trial judge when determining the voluntariness of a confession.

The High Court, in a joint judgment, affirmed the established principle that a confession is inadmissible if it was not voluntary. They clarified that the test for voluntariness is whether the confession was made freely and voluntarily by the accused, without compulsion or inducement. The court held that the trial judge had applied the correct legal test and, based on the evidence presented at trial, had not erred in concluding that the confession was voluntary and therefore admissible. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders