Legal Research
Cases
Strbak v The Queen

Strbak v The Queen

Link copied

Case Copied 11 September 2019 1 min read

Contents

On this page

[2019] HCATrans 180

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B25 of 2019

B e t w e e n -
HEIDI STRBAK
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent

BELL J
NETTLE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 11 SEPTEMBER 2019, AT 9.31 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

BELL J: In this application Justice Nettle and I order that special leave to appeal is granted. The parties will be contacted about the estimates of time for the hearing of the matter. The parties will be made aware of the directions necessary for undertaking the appeal.

AT 9.32 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED

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 Strbak 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: [2019] HCATrans 180
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned the conviction of Mr Strbak for the murder of his wife. The central dispute revolved around the admissibility of certain evidence, specifically a confession made by Mr Strbak to police. The Court of Appeal of Victoria was tasked with determining whether this confession had been improperly obtained and, if so, whether its admission at trial had occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting Mr Strbak's confession into evidence. This required the court to consider whether the confession was voluntary, having regard to the circumstances in which it was made, and whether its admission was otherwise unfair or prejudicial to the appellant. The court also had to assess whether, even if the confession was improperly admitted, the conviction should be upheld on the basis that no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred.

Bell and Nettle JJ applied the principles governing the admissibility of confessions, which require that they be voluntary and not obtained by unfair means. They considered the evidence relating to the length of questioning, the appellant's state of mind, and the conduct of the police officers. The court ultimately found that the confession was not involuntary and that its admission did not occasion a miscarriage of justice, upholding the conviction.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.

Citations

3

Cases citing this decision · 3 of 3 shown

High Court Bulletin
[2019] HCAB 9

… …
High Court Bulletin
[2019] HCAB 8

… …
High Court Bulletin
[2019] HCAB 7

… …

View all 3 citing cases

Cases cited in this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No cases cited.

Legislation cited

0

Click a section to find it in the full text

No legislation cited in this case.

Find similar cases