Smith v The Queen - [2016] HCATrans 16

[2016] HCATrans 016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Adelaide No A22 of 2015

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

FRENCH CJ
KIEFEL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM CANBERRA BY VIDEO LINK TO ADELAIDE

ON FRIDAY, 12 FEBRUARY 2016, AT 9.52 AM

MR B.W. WALKER, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MS J.S. DAVEY, for the applicant. (instructed by Legal Services Commission)

MR A.P. KIMBER, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MS E.O. BROWN, for the respondent. (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (SA))

FRENCH CJ: Thank you. I know that this related to the next matter, Mr Walker, but there are differences, I think.

MR WALKER: Yes.

FRENCH CJ: Are both parties content to have them dealt with separately?

MR WALKER: It is artificial for the circumstance that your Honour has just referred to not to be appreciated, obviously. It is not just the next case. Your Honours appreciate there is Miller ‑ ‑ ‑

FRENCH CJ: Yes, indeed.

MR WALKER: ‑ ‑ ‑ that I am actually going to start with a reference to, so I am certainly happy to argue the whole of our case and have it responded to if any response is called for without Presley being called on, but I am entirely in your Honour’s hands.

FRENCH CJ: Yes, we will deal with them sequentially, I think.

MR WALKER: Your Honours, I have referred to Miller – a case where on 13 November last there was a grant of special leave. Apropos the matters which were plainly live in that application, could I take you in the present application book to page 365, paragraph 156. This is the reasoning in the Full Court – to dispose of the matter, which incorporated reference to the evidence of intoxication, both generally and of Mr Smith, in particular, and, in particular, with reference to what is captured by the last four words of the reasons, namely “with the necessary intent”.

Before elaborating on that, could I ask your Honours to go back in the reasons, which of course dealt with a number of convicted persons, on pages 355, 356 to paragraphs 126 and 127 which is the corresponding part of the reasons disposing of Mr Miller’s appeal.

As your Honours can see – though this is bordering on a facetious observation – that is somewhat lengthier than one finds in paragraph 156. But, in substance, it adds very little over and above the bare conclusion expressed in 156 for Mr Smith. It was that substantial absence of any reference to intoxication as it affected the critical question of intent – as I say, I will elaborate that a little in a moment.

FRENCH CJ: There was a general direction as to intoxication.

MR WALKER:

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Smith v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] HCATrans 16
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Smith v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Smith, against his conviction for a serious criminal offence. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain evidence during his trial and the subsequent fairness of that trial.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence that was obtained in circumstances that may have infringed the applicant's rights. This raised questions about the proper application of the exclusionary rule in Australian criminal law, particularly where evidence is obtained in contravention of legal or constitutional protections. The court also considered whether, even if the evidence was improperly admitted, its admission had occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice.

The High Court analysed the principles governing the admissibility of evidence obtained in breach of an accused's rights. It affirmed that while there is no general rule of exclusion, courts retain a discretion to exclude evidence if its admission would be unfair to the accused or would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. In this instance, the court found that the admission of the evidence, while potentially problematic, did not, in the context of the entire trial, lead to a substantial miscarriage of justice. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Orders