Scouller v The Queen - [1995] HCATrans 232

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B6 of 1995

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

DAWSON J
TOOHEY J
McHUGH J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 18 AUGUST 1995, AT 12.25 AM

MR G.D. WENDLER: If the Court please, I appear for the applicant. (instructed by J.D. Weller & Associates)

MR J.A. GRIFFIN, QC: If the Court please, I appear with my learned friend, MR G.R. RICE, for the respondent. (instructed by M. Rozenes, QC, Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth))

DAWSON J: Mr Wendler.

MR WENDLER: The applicant’s application for special leave to appeal is defined and directed to four discrete areas. The first area arose by virtue of an evidence ruling in the trial which was subsequently challenged in the Queensland Court of Appeal.

DAWSON J: Do you need an extension of time in this matter, do you not?

MR WENDLER: No, your Honours, not in relation to those grounds of appeal which concern the construction of the Australian Federal Police Act, the constitutional issue in the sentence issue. The application for special leave to appeal as far as I am instructed ‑ ‑ ‑

DAWSON J: It was in time, was it?

MR WENDLER: - - - was in time. It is only the separate discrete point which I will come to in a moment. The second ground concerning special leave to appeal arose by way of a procedural issue that emerged at the trial where the applicant sought the protection of section 99 of the Constitution. The third ground concerns a discrete issue in relation to whether or not there was a miscarriage of justice concerning the sentence and the final issue, to put it conveniently, is a point which relies on this Court’s decision in Ridgeway.

If I can come back to the first issue which concerns the evidence ruling. Very briefly, your Honours, the first issue concerning the grant of special leave to appeal is a matter which is of some importance, in my respectful submission, to the administration of the criminal justice system because it concerns the question as to what extent the Australian Federal Police are obliged, by their own constituent Act, the Australian Federal Police Act to obey the laws of a State when investigating federal offences within a State.

DAWSON J: But apart from the question of importance, there is a question of whether there is any inconsistency, is it not? That is the point that you make, or that is the point that is made against you, rather.

MR WENDLER: Quite so.

DAWSON J: Where is the inconsistency?

MR WENDLER: There is no inconsistency, in my respectful submission.

DAWSON J: Where is there not any inconsistency, perhaps I should say.

MR WENDLER: I should clear this up. I am in no way suggesting that…

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 Scouller v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Scouller v The Queen [1995] HCATrans 232
Case: [1995] HCATrans 232
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Scouller v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal against a conviction for murder. The appellant, Scouller, had been found guilty of murder by a jury in the Supreme Court of Queensland and sentenced to life imprisonment. The appeal to the High Court concerned the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the defence of provocation.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had adequately directed the jury on the elements of provocation, particularly in relation to the requirement that the provocation must be such as to cause an ordinary person to lose self-control. The appellant argued that the jury directions were insufficient and potentially misleading, thereby amounting to a misdirection that prejudiced his defence.

The High Court examined the principles governing the defence of provocation under Queensland law, which were largely consistent with common law principles. Their Honours considered the objective and subjective elements of provocation, focusing on the nature of the alleged provocation and the reaction of the accused. The Court analysed the trial judge's charge to the jury, determining whether it accurately conveyed the legal standard that the provocation must be of a kind that could cause an ordinary person to act as the accused did, and whether the jury was properly instructed on how to apply this standard to the evidence presented. The Court ultimately found that the directions given by the trial judge were adequate and did not constitute a misdirection.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction for murder was affirmed.

Orders