Legal Research
Cases
Santos v The Queen

Santos v The Queen

Case [1987] HCA 55 12 November 1987

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

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

LUCIANO SANTOS and ROY CARRION v. THE QUEEN

12 November 1987

Decision

MASON C.J., BRENNAN, DAWSON, TOOHEY AND GAUDRON JJ. The applicants were tried jointly and were convicted of armed robbery. Their appeals against their conviction were dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeal of South Australia. They now apply for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of their appeals.

2. The information of the Attorney-General charged that on 1 February 1986, at Belair, being armed with an offensive weapon, namely, a piece of metal pipe, they robbed Norman John Hauth of $1,056.76 in cash and a cheque in the sum of $317.00. The Crown case was that at about 8.55 p.m. on 1 February 1986, two masked men held up members of the staff at the bottle department of the Belair Hotel and robbed them of the sum of money and a cheque. The men were in a Ford Cortina. This car was located by police at 9.10 p.m. near a railway line not far from the hotel. A police tracker dog followed a trail from the vicinity of the car at about 9.30 p.m. in the general direction of a flat where the applicants were living. The dog lost the trail 500 or 600 metres from the flat. The Ford Cortina was stolen from the Mitcham area. On 17 February at about 2.30 p.m. the police raided the flat which was occupied by the applicants and arrested them on suspicion of armed robbery. The police gave evidence that amongst the articles which they took from the flat were a pair of tracksuit pants and a top. Mrs Evans, the owner of the Ford Cortina, gave evidence that these garments were in her car when it was stolen. There was evidence from the police that the applicants confessed to the crime, the confessions being recorded in a record of interview. According to the police evidence Carrion, who was unable to read and write, acknowledged his record of interview with a cross. Carrion denied that he was unable to read and write and that he acknowledged the record of interview in any way. Santos refused to sign his record of interview. The applicants gave evidence denying the charge of armed robbery, that there was an interview of the kind claimed by the police and that they made a confession. Carrion denied that he made the cross. They each denied any knowledge of the tracksuit pants and the top. The detectives were cross-examined on the footing that they had fabricated the evidence that these garments were found in the flat.

3. The applicant Santos raises three points in support of his application for special leave to appeal. They are:

(1) that evidence of the confessions should have been excluded by the trial judge in the exercise of his discretion on the ground that the detention in custody of the applicants at the time when the confessions were alleged…

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 Santos v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Santos v The Queen [1987] HCA 55
Case: [1987] HCA 55
Decision Date: 12 November 1987

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Santos was convicted of murder in the Supreme Court of Queensland and appealed to the High Court of Australia. The appeal concerned the admissibility of a confession made by Santos to police.

The High Court was required to determine whether the confession was improperly or illegally obtained, and if so, whether it should have been excluded from evidence under the discretion of the trial judge. Specifically, the Court considered the application of the principle that evidence obtained in contravention of the law, or by unfair means, may be excluded.

The Court reasoned that the confession was obtained in circumstances where Santos had been subjected to prolonged questioning and had been denied access to legal advice. While the police had cautioned Santos, the overall circumstances of the interrogation were found to be unfair. Applying the principle of discretionary exclusion, the High Court held that the trial judge had erred in admitting the confession, as its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. The appeal was therefore allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.

Orders