Legal Research
Cases
S v The Queen

S v The Queen

Case [2001] HCATrans 176

Appeal

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S189 of 2000

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

GAUDRON J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 1 JUNE, 2001, AT 2.18 PM

MR R.D. ELLIS: I appear for the respondent, your Honour. (instructed by S.E. O’Connor, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (New South Wales))

GAUDRON J: In this matter the applicant is unrepresented and in custody. We need not trouble you, Mr Ellis.

The applicant, who is unrepresented and in custody, seeks an extension of time and the grant of special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. That court allowed a sentence appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions and increased the applicant’s sentence. We have read the applicant’s submissions and note the hardship which he now suffers and will continue to suffer in consequence of his assistance to the police. This notwithstanding, this Court can only deal with legal principle and, in this regard, no error of principle is to be detected in the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Accordingly, although time is extended, the application for special leave must be refused.

It should also be noted that at the request of the applicant’s wife a sealed envelope was today handed to the Deputy Registrar, apparently containing information that was available to the Court of Criminal Appeal and to the sentencing judge. Because this Court can only act on the basis that there is demonstrated an error of legal principle, that material is irrelevant and it may be returned in its sealed envelope to whomsoever delivered it to the Deputy Registrar this morning.

AT 2.20 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

Details

AGLC: S v The Queen [2001] HCATrans 176
Case: [2001] HCATrans 176
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by S against a conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained during police investigations.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the evidence, which included a confession made by S, had been obtained in contravention of the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth) and, if so, whether it should have been excluded from the trial proceedings. This involved an examination of the powers of police to question suspects and the circumstances under which admissions made during such questioning are admissible.

Gaudron and Callinan JJ, in separate judgments, analysed the provisions of the *Crimes Act* relating to the questioning of suspects and the admissibility of evidence obtained in breach of those provisions. Their Honours considered the discretion of the trial judge to exclude evidence even if lawfully obtained, where its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. The Court ultimately found that the evidence in question was admissible and that the trial judge had not erred in admitting it.

Orders