Stanoevski v The Queen - [2000] HCATrans 381

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S251 of 1999

B e t w e e n -
LILJANA STANOEVSKI
Appellant
and
THE QUEEN

Respondent

GAUDRON J
McHUGH J
KIRBY J
HAYNE J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 5 SEPTEMBER 2000, AT 10.18 AM

MR T.A. GAME, SC: If the Court pleases, I appear for the appellant with my learned friends, MR S.J. ODGERS and MR A.S. KOSTOPOULOS. (instructed by Greg Walsh & Co)

MR T.L. BUDDIN, SC: May it please the Court, I appear together with my learned friend, MR R.A. HULME, on behalf of the respondent. (instructed by S.E. O’Connor, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions)

MR GAME: If the Court pleases, before I take the Court to the various rulings and exchanges which are the subject of this appeal it might be convenient if I could take the Court to some of the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act because otherwise I will have to keep going back to them during the course of the exchange and I hope to do my best with elucidating in some respects what these ‑ ‑ ‑

GAUDRON J: We will be indebted to you, Mr Game.

KIRBY J: That was the basis on which special leave was given, I think, the importance of the Evidence Act provisions.

MR GAME: Yes. I am not making any promises to provide everlasting insight into these provisions, but I will take the Court through the relevant provisions. One begins, and the Court has been taken through these provisions before, but sections 55 and 56 are, as it were, driving provisions. Section 55 says that:

evidence that is relevant in a proceeding is evidence that, if it were accepted, could rationally affect (directly or indirectly) the assessment –

so that is the first provision. Then subsection (2) should be noted:

In particular, evidence is not taken to be irrelevant only because it relates only to:
(a) the credibility of a witness - - -

KIRBY J: Now, the words at the end of that first subsection are important, “the probability of the existence of a fact in issue in the proceeding”. But for that additional paragraph (2)(a), one might think that an issue in the proceeding is one which is raised by the indictment.

MR GAME: That is true, your Honour.

KIRBY J: But, when you read it with 55(2)(a), it seems to indicate that it has a wider meaning, because otherwise there would have been no need for that paragraph.

MR GAME: I think the answer is that it is to make it clear that credibility evidence is relevant to a fact in issue. That may amount to the same thing, your Honour.

It is worth bearing in mind that when one comes to section 102, notions such as “substantial probative value” are introduced and what that substantial probative value relates to is an issue 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 Stanoevski v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Stanoevski v The Queen [2000] HCATrans 381
Case: [2000] HCATrans 381
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Mr Stanoevski against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of a confession made by Mr Stanoevski to police.

The High Court was required to determine whether the confession was improperly obtained, thereby rendering it inadmissible under the common law. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the confession was involuntary, or whether it was obtained in circumstances that rendered its admission unfair to the appellant.

The Court analysed the circumstances surrounding the confession, including the length of police interviews, the appellant's mental state, and the manner in which questions were put to him. Applying established principles of the law of evidence, the Court held that the confession was not involuntary. However, the majority found that the admission of the confession at trial was unfair to the appellant, as it was obtained in circumstances where the appellant was vulnerable and the police had not afforded him adequate opportunity to seek legal advice.

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

Orders