Legal Research
Cases
Saad v The Queen

Saad v The Queen

Case [1987] HCA 14 7 May 1987

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mason C.J., Deane, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ.

ALAN SAAD v. THE QUEEN

7 May 1987

Decisions

MASON C.J., DEANE AND DAWSON JJ.: The appellant's trial, on which he was convicted of being in possession of prohibited imports (some 85.9 grams of heroin) contrary to s.233B(1)(ca) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth), took place in the County Court of Victoria in late April and early May 1985. Understandably, in the light of then current authority (see e.g. Reg. v. Ditroia and Tucci (1981) VR 247), the learned trial judge failed to direct the jury in accordance with what was subsequently decided by this Court in He Kaw Teh v. The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523, namely, that on a prosecution of such an offence, the prosecution bears the onus of proving that the accused acted with mens rea, that is to say, with a guilty mind. As the judgment of Hampel J. (with whom Murray and McGarvie JJ. agreed) in the Victorian Court of Criminal Appeal and the joint judgment of Toohey and Gaudron JJ. in this Court demonstrate however, it is quite fanciful, in the context of the trial and the unmistakable inferences to be drawn from the jury's verdict of guilty, to suggest that there has been a possible miscarriage of justice in the sense that that failure of the learned trial judge deprived the applicant of any real chance of acquittal which he otherwise might have possessed. The reason for that is that the issue between the applicant and the prosecution on the trial was whether the applicant was in possession of the drug. If, contrary to the whole of the applicant's case, he was found to have been in possession of the drug, there was simply no room for any suggestion that he was ignorant of either its existence or its nature. In these circumstances, the decision of the Victorian Court of Criminal Appeal that the case was one in which the proviso of s.568(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vict.) should be applied, must be upheld.

2. In the course of his judgment in the Court of Criminal Appeal, Hampel J. pointed to the divergence between the majority judgments in He Kaw Teh and the need to provide some guidance to trial judges about the approach to be adopted in formulating the directions to be given to juries in the light of the judgments in that case. In our judgment in Kural v. The Queen (unreported May 1987), we sought to give such guidance in a case where the alleged offence was the importing of a prohibited import. We emphasized then, and we do so again, that our comments were not designed as a direction or instruction to be read by trial judges to juries. Our comments are intended to give guidance to trial judges in order to enable them to formulate such directions as may be appropriate to the facts and circumstances of particular cases. In the following…

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 Saad v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Saad v The Queen [1987] HCA 14
Case: [1987] HCA 14
Decision Date: 7 May 1987

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Mr. Saad, against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained during police investigations and the proper application of the law relating to self-defence.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence obtained in circumstances that may have infringed the applicant's rights, and whether the jury directions on the issue of self-defence were adequate and correctly reflected the relevant legal principles. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the evidence was obtained in contravention of the common law or statutory provisions, and if so, whether its admission was nevertheless justified. Furthermore, the Court examined the onus of proof in relation to self-defence and the standard required for an acquittal on that basis.

The Court's reasoning focused on the principles governing the admission of evidence obtained in breach of legal rights. It affirmed that while the common law permits the admission of illegally or improperly obtained evidence, courts retain a discretion to exclude such evidence if its admission would be unfair to the accused or would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. In relation to self-defence, the Court reiterated that the prosecution bears the onus of disproving self-defence beyond reasonable doubt once evidence is adduced suggesting its possibility. The jury directions were scrutinised to ensure they accurately conveyed this burden and the elements of self-defence as defined by law.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

Orders