RTGS v The Queen - [2006] HCATrans 424

[2006] HCATrans 424

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S601 of 2005

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

GUMMOW J
KIRBY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 4 AUGUST 2006 AT 12.35 PM

MR A.C. HAESLER, SC: I appear with MS R.W. BURGESS for the applicant, your Honour. (instructed by Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales)

MR G.E. SMITH, SC: I appear for the respondent, your Honour. (instructed by Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (New South Wales))

GUMMOW J: Yes, Mr Haesler.

MR HAESLER: Thank you, your Honour. There is an extension of time sought in relation to the – and we rely on the affidavit that was ‑ ‑ ‑

GUMMOW J: That is not opposed?

MR SMITH: Not opposed, your Honour.

GUMMOW J: You have that extension.

MR HAESLER: Thank you, your Honour. Your Honours, I want to deal with the Evidence (Children) Act, but before I do can I make two quick points. This appeal concerns, in part, the use of new technology and we accept that new technology must not, nor need not, be feared and, in fact, can be embraced. What we say is that when new technology is embraced and used, the high standards of fairness which are fundamental to our justice system and our criminal justice system should apply.

GUMMOW J: One has the impression that counsel for the present applicant at the trial was rather hopeful that the jury in looking at this film over and over again might find something in it that favoured his case.

MR HAESLER: Counsel at the trial was doing the best he could with a bad lot once the tape had been admitted as an exhibit. The problem for counsel at the trial, we say, was that he was at the time following wrongly a fairly standard practice in New South Wales, and that was to treat this particular and new form of delivering evidence as if it was just another exhibit. It was a point made by the New South Wales Court of Appeal, Justice Howie and Justice Johnson, in the case of NZ, which is in the bundle before the Court.

GUMMOW J: Is that the one in which the Chief Justice dissented?

MR HAESLER: That is the one in which the Chief Justice dissented. It is at tab 2 in the bundle. At page 671, paragraph 182 Justices Howie and Johnson, speaking of the similar procedures that arose in NZ, which was argued essentially in parallel with the present matter, said of NZ:

In the present case the videotapes of the witnesses were admitted into evidence and became ‑ ‑ ‑

GUMMOW J: Just assist us. What is the relevant section, 9 or 11, of the 1997 statute?

MR HAESLER: Both 9 and 11.

GUMMOW J: How does…

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 RTGS v The Queen

Details

AGLC: RTGS v The Queen [2006] HCATrans 424
Case: [2006] HCATrans 424
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered the appeal of RTGS against the conviction for murder entered against him in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained from RTGS following his arrest.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the evidence, specifically a confession made by RTGS, was improperly obtained and therefore inadmissible under the *Uniform Evidence Law* (or equivalent principles at common law). This involved determining whether RTGS had been properly cautioned and whether his confession was voluntary, free from duress or undue influence.

The Court analysed the circumstances surrounding RTGS's arrest and questioning, paying close attention to the requirements for a valid caution and the voluntariness of confessions. It applied established principles regarding the admissibility of confessional evidence, considering whether the police conduct had rendered the confession unreliable or unfair to the accused. The judgment underscored the importance of procedural fairness in the investigative process.

Orders