HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Gibbs C.J., Mason, Wilson, Deane and Dawson JJ.
STEPHENS v. THE QUEEN
18 April 1985
Criminal Law
Criminal Law—Evidence—Confession—Admissibility—Unsigned record of interview by police—Discretion of trial judge—Availability of admitted confession to jury—Whether power to exclude from jury room.
Decision
GIBBS C.J., MASON, WILSON, DEANE and DAWSON JJ. This is an application for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales which dismissed the applicant's appeal against his conviction on a charge that on 21 October 1980 at Engadine he did murder James Mason George.
2. The body of the deceased, a youth aged sixteen, was on the morning of 22 October 1980 found on a walking track not far from the Engadine railway station. His skull had been smashed in with a piece of rock. The Crown case was as follows. The applicant and the deceased met by chance on the railway station at Sutherland on the night of 21 October 1980 and in the course of conversation the deceased informed the applicant that he was catching a train to Engadine. The applicant, who was travelling to Helensburg, caught a train which left Sutherland at about 10.34 p.m. and was due to travel express to Waterfall, which is past Engadine. As his train pulled out the deceased put his hand on his hip "like a drag queen". The applicant decided to alight at Engadine and at his request the engine driver slowed the train to allow him to do so. A short time later another train arrived at Engadine from Sutherland and the deceased got off it. The applicant engaged the deceased in conversation and later persuaded him to have homosexual relations, both oral and anal. The deceased then asked for money and the applicant attacked him in a manner that caused his death.
3. The applicant had a rather distinctive appearance, having red hair and a bushy red beard and moustache, and there was evidence that a man answering that description talked to the deceased at Sutherland, alighted from the moving train at Engadine and there spoke to the deceased, but none of the witnesses who gave that evidence could positively identify the applicant. There was also evidence that later that evening - at about 12.30 p.m. - the applicant was picked up by a passing vehicle and driven from Engadine to Helensburg. However the evidence which, if accepted, made the Crown case an overwhelming one was that given by police officers as to statements made by the applicant. The police officers gave evidence that the applicant first said that he got the train straight home to Helensburgh, but later admitted that he had got off at Engadine and had killed the deceased. He then volunteered to write, and did write, in his own handwriting, a document in which he admitted meeting the deceased boy at Engadine and giving him a cigarette - at that point the narrative…
Continue reading Stephens v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Stephens v The Queen [1985] HCA 30
- Case
- [1985] HCA 30
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Stephens against a conviction for a criminal offence. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of an unsigned record of interview conducted by police, which had been admitted into evidence at trial.
The High Court was required to determine whether the unsigned record of interview was admissible as a confession, the scope of the trial judge's discretion to exclude such evidence, and whether the jury should have been permitted to have access to the admitted confession during their deliberations.
The Court held that the unsigned record of interview was admissible as a confession, provided it was proved to have been made by the appellant. However, the Court found that the trial judge had erred in admitting the unsigned record of interview without sufficient proof of its accuracy and in allowing it to go to the jury room. The High Court applied the principles relating to the admissibility of confessions and the discretion of a trial judge to exclude evidence where its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value.
The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. The Court ordered that the appeal to that Court be allowed, that the conviction and sentence be set aside, and that a new trial be had.
The High Court was required to determine whether the unsigned record of interview was admissible as a confession, the scope of the trial judge's discretion to exclude such evidence, and whether the jury should have been permitted to have access to the admitted confession during their deliberations.
The Court held that the unsigned record of interview was admissible as a confession, provided it was proved to have been made by the appellant. However, the Court found that the trial judge had erred in admitting the unsigned record of interview without sufficient proof of its accuracy and in allowing it to go to the jury room. The High Court applied the principles relating to the admissibility of confessions and the discretion of a trial judge to exclude evidence where its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value.
The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. The Court ordered that the appeal to that Court be allowed, that the conviction and sentence be set aside, and that a new trial be had.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for special leave to appeal granted.
Appeal allowed.
Order that the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal
of the Supreme Court of New South Wales be set aside. In lieu thereof order that the appeal to that Court be allowed, that the conviction and sentence be set aside and that a new trial be had.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.