Legal Research
Cases
Subramaniam v The Queen

Subramaniam v The Queen

Case [2004] HCA 51 10 November 2004

Statutory Construction

Criminal Law

Evidence

Statutory Interpretation

Type to search within this case.

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
GLEESON CJ,
McHUGH, KIRBY, HAYNE AND CALLINAN JJ
KALA SUBRAMANIAM  APPELLANT
AND
THE QUEEN  RESPONDENT
Subramaniam v The Queen [2004] HCA 51
10 November 2004
S588/2003
ORDER
1.        Appeal allowed.
2.Set aside the order of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal made on 25 November 2002 dismissing the appellant's appeal and, in its place, order that:
(a)the appellant's appeal to that Court be allowed;
(b)the conviction of the appellant be quashed; and
(c)there be a new trial of the appellant on the first count of the indictment.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Representation:
M R Einfeld QC with D R J Toomey for the appellant (instructed by McClellands)
R D Cogswell SC with G E Smith and J A Quilter for the respondent (instructed by the Solicitor for Public Prosecutions for New South Wales)
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS
Subramaniam v The Queen
Criminal law – Unfitness to be tried – Attorney-General directed that a "special hearing" under the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW) ("the Act") be conducted in respect of charges against the appellant – Whether and in what circumstances a "special hearing" should be stayed – Whether "special hearing" conducted in compliance with conditions and procedures required by the Act – Adequacy of trial judge's directions to the jury.
Practice and procedure – Trials conducted as "special hearings" under the Act – Jury directions.
Words and phrases – "unfit to be tried", "special hearing", "substantial miscarriage of justice".
Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW), ss 19, 21(4).

GLEESON CJ, McHUGH, KIRBY, HAYNE AND CALLINAN JJ. The principal questions in this appeal are whether a stay of the appellant's trial under the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW) ("the Act") should have been granted, and whether, when the trial did proceed, it was conducted in compliance with the Act.
Facts
The initiating events: On a morning in August 1995 the driver of a vehicle registered in the name of Ms Leigh Johnson, who was then a practising solicitor, failed to stop at a red light in a Sydney suburb. The failure was captured on camera. The features, and therefore the identity of the driver could not be distinguished in the photograph. Ms Johnson was issued with an infringement notice. She elected, as she was entitled to do, to contest the charge contained in the notice before the Local Court of New South Wales. In November 1995 Ms Johnson requested that Court to grant her an adjournment on the grounds of her physical inability to attend. On 10 January 1996 the case was set down for hearing on 29 May 1996. On 30 January 1996, Ms Johnson requested copies of the images captured on camera. They were supplied. On 29 February 1996 the appellant, who at the time was an employee of Ms Johnson, made a…

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 Subramaniam v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Subramaniam v The Queen [2004] HCA 51
Case: [2004] HCA 51
Decision Date: 10 November 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal concerning charges of perverting the course of justice against the appellant. The dispute arose from the appellant making a statutory declaration falsely identifying herself as the driver of a vehicle that had run a red light, with the intention of perverting the course of justice. The appellant was subsequently charged with making a false statutory declaration and giving false evidence. The core of the appeal concerned whether a "special hearing" conducted under the *Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990* (NSW) should have been stayed, and whether the hearing was conducted in compliance with the Act.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the trial judge erred in refusing to grant a stay of proceedings, considering the appellant's mental unfitness to stand trial. The court also had to determine if the special hearing was conducted in accordance with the procedural requirements of the *Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990* (NSW), particularly regarding the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury concerning the appellant's absence from giving evidence and the handling of certain recorded and oral evidence. A further issue was whether the prosecution had a duty to present more detailed evidence regarding the appellant's mental health to the jury.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashing the appellant's conviction and ordering a new trial. The Court found that the trial judge had failed to comply with section 21(4) of the *Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990* (NSW), which mandates that a judge must be satisfied that the accused is capable of understanding the proceedings and is capable of communicating with their legal representative. The Court held that the evidence before the trial judge was insufficient to establish these matters, particularly given the appellant's diagnosed mental health issues. The Court also noted that the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the appellant's unfitness to be tried and the handling of evidence were inadequate.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Set aside the order of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal made on 25 November 2002 dismissing the appellant's appeal and, in its place, order that:

(a) the appellant's appeal to that Court be allowed;

(b) the conviction of the appellant be quashed; and

Background

Background to the litigation

GLEESON CJ, Mc The principal questions in this appeal are whether a stay of the appellant's trial under the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW) ("the Act") should have been granted, and whether, when the trial did proceed, it was conducted in compliance with the Act. Facts The initiating events: On a morning in August 1995 the driver of a vehicle registered in the name of Ms Leigh Johnson, who was then a practising solicitor, failed to stop at a red light in a Sydney suburb. The failure was captured on camera. The features, and therefore the identity of the driver could not be distinguished in the photograph. Ms Johnson was issued with an infringement notice. She elected, as she was entitled to do, to contest the charge contained in the notice before the Local Court of New South Wales. In November 1995 Ms Johnson requested that Court to grant her an adjournment on the grounds of her physical inability to attend. On 10 January 1996 the case was set down for hearing on 29 May 1996. On 30 January 1996, Ms Johnson requested copies of the images captured on camera. They were supplied. On 29 February 1996 the appellant, who at the time was an employee of Ms Johnson, made a statutory declaration that she was the infringing driver of the vehicle. The declaration was witnessed by another solicitor employed by Ms Johnson. On 5 March 1996 Ms Johnson sent the appellant's statutory declaration to the prosecutor with a request that the case be discontinued. She also asked that the infringement notice be forwarded to the appellant. The prosecutor rejected the requests. On 2 July 1996 Ms Johnson was convicted in absentia. On 5 August 1996 she appealed to the District Court of New South Wales. There the appellant gave evidence that was, with one non-material exception, generally consistent with her declaration. The appeal was upheld and Ms Johnson's conviction was quashed. On 5 December 1996 the appellant and Ms Johnson were charged with two counts of perverting the course of justice under s 312 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The first charge against the appellant was as follows: "on 29 February 1996 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales did make a statutory declaration knowing it to be false with intent to pervert the course of justice."This was the second charge:"on 5 August 1996 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales did give false evidence to the District Court with intent to pervert the course of justice." A recorded conversation: On 6 December 1996 members of the Homicide Unit of the New South Wales Police Force – why that Unit was involved was not explored – arranged for a former employee of Ms Johnson and therefore an acquaintance of the appellant, Ms Coughlan, to meet the appellant. Ms Coughlan was fitted with a recording device to record surreptitiously any conversation that she might have with the appellant. Ms Coughlan then contrived a meeting with the appellant and discussed the infringement and Ms Johnson's and the appellant's involvement in it. These exchanges formed part of that discussion:"[Coughlan]: Yeah. Well do you remember I was in the, I was in the, do you remember, you know when we were in the room and she asked which one of us, you know, was going to take it. And I couldn't because of all my ... [Appellant]: Oh, I'd take it.[Coughlan]: And you said you could, because of your perfect driving record.[Appellant]: Not that I could, but that ... [Coughlan]: You didn't want to ...[Appellant]: Yeah, I could ...[Coughlan]: … because of your ...[Appellant]: … not that I wanted to.[Coughlan]: Yeah, yeah.[Appellant]: But the thing is that they were out of time: they can't strip, they couldn't take any points of my licence anyway. So I've still got a clean record.[Coughlan]: Really?...[Appellant]: Yeah, so she didn't lose any points, neither did I.[Coughlan]: Yeah.[Appellant]: And no one got fined either.[Coughlan]: Yeah.[Appellant]: Yeah....[Appellant]: ... well we didn't stall it. What happened was, they didn't inform us the first day. Right? By the time they had to re-list it, we had not documentation saying it was listed on that day. So no one turned up....[Coughlan]: So what did they ask you in court?[Appellant]: Well, I just, I just sat in the witness box and had a nice conversation with the judge.[Coughlan]: So you weren't cross examined?[Appellant]: No, because, Leigh, Leigh thought she'd have to. Because she was, like, all ready to go.[Coughlan]: Yeah.[Appellant]: And he was just sitting there asking me questions, and I was just, like, sitting back enjoying myself....[Appellant]: (Laughs) But the photos, the photos, the photos ... [Coughlan]: … and showed her driving instead of you.[Appellant]: The photos showed nothing. We ordered the photos.[Coughlan]: Right.[Appellant]: Mm. And they showed nothing. You couldn't tell who was driving.[Coughlan]: So, you weren't worried about …...[Coughlan]: ... apart from her being blonde and with you being like dark haired.[Appellant]: I know, I know, I know.[Coughlan]: Yeah, because when it came out in the paper I thought, 'Oh my God, she could have at least ...'[Appellant]: Yeah.[Coughlan]: … got someone blonde to say they were driving. You know what I mean?"

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

In this Court the appellant's ground was not directed to the admissibility of the taped evidence because special leave to argue such a ground was refused. Instead, the appellant sought to rely on a ground that the trial judge misdirected the jury as to the way in which they should deal with that evidence and the in-court oral evidence of Ms Coughlan. The argument in essence turned out to be little more than a complaint that the taped material contained irrelevant and scandalous matter. Although the appellant also contended that the trial judge "[failed] to explain the tape" she did not develop the submission beyond that. Nonetheless we have examined what the trial judge said of the taped evidence and the in-court evidence of Ms Coughlan, which was not, we would point out, the subject of any request for redirections at the trial. The trial judge's comments regarding these bodies of evidence were entirely appropriate. His Honour drew attention to the greater worldliness of Ms Coughlan and to the possibility that, because of the leading nature of some of the questions she asked the appellant, the answers might not be reliable. He also referred to some inconsistencies between Ms Coughlan's evidence and some of the objective facts. Finally, he summarized uncritically the submissions made on each side with respect to Ms Coughlan. There is nothing in this ground and it must accordingly be rejected. The failure to call evidence The prosecutor's suggested duty: The appellant argued that the prosecution should have adduced detailed evidence of the appellant's mental unfitness so that the jury could understand, or understand better, the respects in which she was disabled, and might therefore be denied full participation in her trial. To some extent the trial judge in referring to Dr Menzies' evidence in relation to the second application, did do this. It is true, however, that at no stage did the jury have the benefit of expert testimony concerning the appellant's mental health. All that they had was the trial judge's economical opening remarks about the appellant's mental health. The appellant's submission, in substance, was that it was unfair to her for the respondent to fail to tender in the special hearing itself detailed evidence of the kind to which we have referred. There is no doubt that the prosecution is under a duty to present the case fairly and completely[24]. Long ago, in R v Puddick[25] Crompton J made the following observation of prosecutors:"[they] are to regard themselves as ministers of justice, and not to struggle for a conviction" In R v Lucas Smith ACJ said this of a prosecutor's duty to act fairly[26]:"For the purpose of establishing such an allegation of unfairness it is not necessary for the applicant to be able to point to the conduct of an identified person or persons concerned in the prosecution as having been blameworthy. It is sufficient for him to show that the totality of the acts of those concerned on behalf of the Crown in the preparation and conduct of the prosecution has operated unfairly against him.... the duty of a prosecutor is to prosecute and not to defend, nevertheless it has long been established that a prosecution must be conducted with fairness towards the accused and with a single view to determining and establishing the truth."[24]Richardson v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 116 at 119; Whitehorn v The Queen (1983) 152 CLR 657 at 663-664, 674; R v Apostilides (1984) 154 CLR 563 at 573‑577; Dyers v The Queen (2002) 210 CLR 285 at 292-293 [11], 298-299 [27], 326-327 [117], [119]. See also R v Thomas (No 2) [1974] 1 NZLR 658.[25](1865) 4 F & F 497 at 499 [176 ER 662 at 663]. [26][1973] VR 693 at 696.

Decision

Reasons for decision

HUGH, KIRBY, HAYNE AND CALLINAN JJ (dissent)

On 25 November 2002 the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal (Beazley JA and Sully J, Simpson J dissenting on the issue of the stay which was also the subject of the appeal) dismissed an appeal brought by the appellant against her conviction. It is from this judgment that the appellant appeals to this Court.Decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal Beazley JA, (Sully J agreeing) said this with respect to the stay[3]:"It is often the case that, because of a person's mental condition, the person is not able to give evidence or otherwise meaningfully participate in the trial. As I have said, his Honour considered that the interests of justice were best served by the trial proceeding as soon as possible ... It is often the case with a person being tried under [the Act] that he/she cannot, in any practical or meaningful way, participate in the trial. Accordingly, I do not see any appellable error in his Honour having refused the application." [3][2002] NSWCCA 372 at [42]. In her dissenting judgment Simpson J[4] expressed the view that the "medical evidence was so overwhelming as to dictate that the proceedings be stayed – if not permanently, at least temporarily." [4][2002] NSWCCA 372 at [84].The appeal to this Court The appellant appealed to this Court on a number of grounds: that the Court of Criminal Appeal should have set aside the finding of the trial judge, Luland DCJ, that there should not be a stay in the proceedings; that the trial judge failed to direct the jury adequately about why the appellant did not give evidence, or how they should approach the absence of that evidence; and about how they should deal with the taped evidence and the evidence of Ms Coughlan. The next ground of appeal was as follows: "The trial/special hearing miscarried by reason of the Crown's failure to place evidence before the jury of the nature and extent of the appellant's mental illness and unfitness to give evidence in the light of:(a)The Crown's refusal to consent to the trial/special hearing proceeding before a Judge alone as permitted by the relevant legislation, so requiring it to be a trial by Jury;(b)The Crown's requirement and the trial Judge's order that the appellant be present throughout the trial/special hearing;(c)The fact that the appellant had previously given sworn evidence on these issues of which the jury had not rejected." During the hearing of the appeal the appellant was granted leave to add another ground as follows:"The special hearing miscarried by reason of the trial judge's failure to comply with the requirements imposed by s 21(4) of [the Act]." It was upon this ground that the parties particularly focussed during the hearing of the appeal.The stay The principles governing stays: The principles relating to the grant of a stay are not disputed[5]. The appellant does not in this Court, nor has she previously, complained of unreasonable delay in the prosecution of her case. She relies solely on the fact of her deteriorating mental health, that it relevantly adversely affected her in two particular respects. First, it is submitted that her mental health prevented her from being able to give reliable testimony. Secondly, further prosecution of the proceedings could have resulted in a serious worsening of her current mental health. We observe at this point that no fresh evidence was sought to be tendered in the Court of Criminal Appeal to establish that the trial had in fact significantly worsened the appellant's condition.[5]Aboud v Attorney-General for New South Wales (1987) 10 NSWLR 671 at 684 per Kirby P, 692 per McHugh JA.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by:

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

117

AGLC Citation

Subramaniam v The Queen [2004] HCA 51

Most Recent Citation

Director of Public Prosecutions v Carson (a pseudonym) [2022] VCC 595

Cases citing this decision · 50 of 99 shown

Feetham v The King
[2025] VSCA 179

…Farshchi v The King [2024] VSCA 235; Karam v The King [2023] VSCA 318; Awad v The Queen (2022) 275 CLR 421; Subramaniam v The Queen (2004) 79 ALJR 116.…
Alzuain v The King; Alzuain v The King; Alzuain v The King; Jalleh v The King; Montgomery v The King; Pryde v The King; Sianis v The King
[2025] SASCA 67

…kland (A Pseudonym) v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (2018) 266 CLR 325; Subramaniam v R (2004) 79 ALJR 116; Taylor v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 335; The Crown v Clarke (1927) 40 CLR 227; The Queen v Bauer (2018) 266 CLR 56; Thomas v The King [2024] SASCA 51; Tierney v R [2016] NSWCCA 144; Tilley v The King (2023…
Hussain v The King
[2024] VSCA 288 Para 5

…ed by the judge. [37]See Subramaniam v The Queen (2004) 79 ALJR 116, 127–8 [54] (Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Kirby, Hayne and Callinan JJ); [2004] HCA 51.…
R v Parnell (No 1)
[2024] NSWDC 689

…wider than that and include larger questions of legal principle, the public interest, and policy considerations: see BHP Billiton v Schultz [2004] HCA 51; 221 CLR 400. 70. In some cases ‘the interests of justice’ will override other recognised legal principles or matters of public policy. Thus, in Mickelberg v T…
RC v Director of Public Prosecutions
[2024] NSWCCA 95

…011] NSWDC 258 R v O’Neill (No 2) [2023] NSWDC 572 R v WRC [2003] NSWCCA 394; (2003) 59 NSWLR 273 Subramaniam v The Queen [2004] HCA 51; 79 ALJR 116 TS v R [2014] NSWCCA 174 Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378; [1993] HCA 77 Category: Principal judgment Parties: RC (Applicant) Director of Public Prosecutions (N…
R v RC
[2024] NSWDC 239 Para 135

…d. The test to be applied to stays based on common humanity, which is a type of abuse of process, was enunciated by the High Court in Subramaniam v R [2004] HCA 51 at [31] where the test was stated as follows:…
Koschier v R
[2024] NSWCCA 24 Para 1

…applying the “common humanity” test from Subramaniam v R [2004] HCA 51 and Kitchingman v R [2023] NSWCCA 4 ( Ground 1 );…
R v O'Neill (No 2)
[2023] NSWDC 572 Para 1

…To permit the continuation of the proceedings is 'out of accord with common humanity': R v Hakim (1989) 41 A Crim R 372; Subramaniam v The Queen (2004) 79 ALJR 116 at [31]…
R v Koschier
[2023] NSWDC 323 Para 58

…sidered bearing in mind the applicant is to be tried by way of a special hearing; that the principles enunciated by the High Court in Subramaniam v R [2004] HCA 51, as recently applied by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal in Kitchingman v R [2023] NSWCCA 4, must be followed.…
Tasmania v Cooke
[2023] TASSC 32

…o administer justice with fairness and impartiality, may be converted into instruments of injustice or unfairness." See also, Subramanian v The Queen [2004] HCA 51, 79 ALJR 116 per the court at [26]. 40 The test for the court to order a stay of proceedings may be formulated as whether the court is satisfied that…
James v The King
[2023] VSCA 34 Para 6

…mitted that the complainant should have been recalled to give evidence again, in the presence of a sworn intermediary. [57](2004) 211 ALR 1, 13 [42]; [2004] HCA 51.…
BTU v The King
[2023] NSWCCA 36

…A 102 NSW Land and Housing Corporation v Orr (2019) 100 NSWLR 578; [2019] NSWCA 231 Ex parte Reid; Re Lynch (1943) SR (NSW) 207 Subramaniam v The Queen (2004) 79 ALJR 116; [2004] HCA 51 Walton v Gardine r (1993) 177 CLR 378; [1993] HCA 77 Category: Principal judgment Parties: BTU (Appellant) The King (Respondent) Representation:…
Kitchingman v R
[2023] NSWCCA 4

…WCCA 155 R v Steffan (1993) 30 NSWLR 633 R v WRC (2003) 59 NSWLR 273; [2003] NSWCCA 394 Subramaniam v The Queen (2004) 79 ALJR 116; [2004] HCA 51 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Allan Kitchingman (Applicant) Rex (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: J Watts (Applicant) B Hatfield (Respondent) Solicitors: R…
Awad v The Queen
[2022] HCA 36 Para 20

…h the provision was, of itself, a substantial miscarriage of justice. An obligation was imposed on the Court and it was both limited and specific. [9](2004) 79 ALJR 116; 211 ALR 1. [10] Subramaniam v The Queen (2004) 79 ALJR 116 at 126 [44]; 211 ALR 1 at 14.…
R v Reilly
[2022] NSWDC 764 Para 188

…In its additional submissions the Crown placed significance on the judgment of the High Court of Subramaniam v The Queen [2004] HCA 51; 211 ALR 1. In the submission of the Crown, Subramaniam related to the very issue of an applicant’s fitness to stand trial and deteriorating mental health. The Crown specifically…
Awad v The Queen; Tambakakis v The Queen
[2022] HCATrans 153

…niam – to which my learned friend briefly referred – in the book of authorities it is part D volume 4, the particular passage is at 1144. It is 79 ALJR 116 at 125, right‑hand column, paragraph [41].…
McMahon v Woodward
[2022] WADC 29 Para 8

…od its terms.[124] [124] Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197, 228, approved in Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 51; (2004) 219 CLR 165 [43], [44] - [46], [57] and the authorities referred to. See also Warner Bros Feature Productions Pty Ltd v Kennedy Miller Mitche…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Carson (a pseudonym)
[2022] VCC 595

…] HCA 20; Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378; [1993] HCA 77; Subramaniam v The Queen (2004) 79 ALJR 116; 211 ALR 1; [2004] HCA 51; McGee (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2020] VSCA 146; Lucciano (a pseudonym) v The Queen (2021) 287 A Crim R 529; [2021] VSCA 12; R v Littler (2001) 120 A Crim R 512; [2001] NSW CCA 173…
FX v R; GX v R
[2020] NSWCCA 189 Para 1

…that combines that of an advocate contending for a cause in adversarial proceedings with that of a Minister of Justice: see Subramaniam v The Queen [2004] HCA 51; 211 ALR 1 at [54] (Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Kirby, Hayne and Callinan JJ); and McCullough v The Queen (1982) 6 A Crim R 274 at 285. In that fundamental sen…
Roberts v The Queen
[2020] VSCA 58

…[56][1973] VR 693, 696; approved in Subramaniam v The Queen (2004) 79 ALJR 116, 127–8 [54].…
Kenneth John Pound v The Queen
[2019] VSCA 279

…al allowed – Indictment permanently stayed – Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 ss 15, 16, 18; Subramaniam v The Queen (2004) 27 ALJR 116, McDonald v The Queen (2016) 263 A Crim R 356, Hermanus (a Pseudonym) v R (2015) 44 VR 335, Bauer (a Pseudonym) v R (2015) 46 VR 382, Green (a Pseudonym) v R [2017]…
McIver v The Queen
[2019] NSWCCA 214 Para 25

…the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice ( Jago ; Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378 at 392-6). In Subramaniam v R (2004) 211 ALR 1, the High Court at [25]-[27] said that fairness or unfairness defies ‘analytical definition’ and involves an ‘undesirably, but unavoidably, large conte…
R v R, G
[2019] SADC 91 Para 25

…made for an order that the trial of the objective facts be permanently stayed.[32] · Vulnerable witness applications [32] cf Subramaniam v The Queen [2004] HCA 51; Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378; and R v Abdulla (2005) 93 SASR 208.…
R v Chute (No 4)
[2018] ACTSC 259 Para 1

…In Subramaniam v The Queen [2004] HCA 51; 79 ALJR 116, the High Court unanimously upheld the refusal of a permanent stay in the case of a special hearing under New South Wales legislation (at [31]-[33]). The Court upheld other grounds of appeal for reasons which it is not necessary to refer.…
R v Waterton
[2019] QMC 6 Para 1

…High Court of Australia emphasise the contemporary and continuing obligation of a prosecutor to present a case fairly and completely: Subramaniam v R [2004] HCA 51; (2004) 79 ALJR 116 at 127-128; [2004] HCA 51 at [54]. In that case, the High Court referred to the well-known propositions that prosecutors “are to…
Justin Anthony FIRTH v RG
[2018] NTLC 29 Para 5

…ee McDonald v R [2016] VSCA 304 at [45]-[47] (per Redlich JA and Beale AJA (Ferguson JA contra); R v Littler (2001) 120 A Crim R 512; Subramaniam v R (2004) 211 ALR 1). 6. Instead, it is important to recognize that it will be a rare case where mental infirmity alone can support the grant of a stay ( McDonald v R [2…
R v Ivanoff
[2017] NSWSC 1707 Para 8

…gh Court of Australia including Kesavarajah v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 230; [1994] HCA 41 at 245-246; and Subramaniam v The Queen (2004) 79 ALJR 116; [2004] HCA 51 at 119 [9].…
R v Chute (No 2)
[2017] ACTSC 347 Para 1

…ce on compliance with a statutory procedure such as that in s 316(2) is consistent with the approach of the High Court in Subramaniam v The Queen [2004] HCA 51; 79 ALJR 116 at [36]-[48] to the giving of instructions by a trial judge under a provision equivalent to s 316(9).…
KN v R
[2017] NSWCCA 249

…R v Burroughs, R v Mainprize (2005) 193 FLR 291; [2005] NSWSC 794 Slotboom v R [2013] NSWCCA 18 Subramaniam v R (2004) 211 ALR 1; [2004] HCA 51 Category: Principal judgment Parties: KN (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: C Waterstreet (Applicant) E Balodis (Crown) Solicitors: Murphy’s Lawyer…
Medical Board of Australia v Woollard
[2017] WASCA 64

…Corporation of Australia Pty Ltd v Collector of Customs (1995) 59 FCR 6 Smith v Bank of Western Australia Ltd [2010] WASCA 15 Subramaniam v The Queen [2004] HCA 51; (2004) 79 ALJR 116 Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 28; (2015) 256 CLR 507 TS v R [2014] NSWCCA 174 Vetter v Lake Macquarie Cit…
Arrivoli v R
[2017] NSWDC 112 Para 17

…gard, the applicant specifically called in aid the decisions in R v Hakim (1989) 41 A Crim R 372, R v WRC [2003] NSWCCA 394 and Subramaniam v R (2004) 211 ALR 1.…
R v Helps
[2016] SASCFC 154

…rdson v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 116; Selig v Hayes (1989) 52 SASR 169; Spence v Demasi (1988) 48 SASR 536; Subramaniam v The Queen (2004) 79 ALJR 116; The Queen v C (1992) 8 CRNZ 546; The Queen v G (Unreported, Supreme Court of South Australia, Cox, Olsson and Mullighan JJ, No 5019, 4 April 1995); The Queen v J, JA…
McDonald v R
[2016] VSCA 304

…) Act 1997 s 11(4) – Alleged offending occurred between 1982 and 1984 – Power to grant stay of special hearing based on mental infirmity, Subramaniam v The Queen (2004) 211 ALR 1, discussed – R v Littler (2001) 120 A Crim R 512, considered – Lengthy delay, loss of evidence and witnesses, and degree of cognitive impairment consid…
Eastman v Director of Public Prosecutions (No 13)
[2016] ACTCA 65

…[51] (2004) 79 ALJR 116, 122 [25] (citation in original).…
Adams v Director of Public Prosecutions
[2016] NSWCCA 253 Para 8

…The primary judge referred to the principles governing the granting of stays in Subramaniam v The Queen [2004] HCA 51; 211 ALR 1 at [25]-[28] and TS v R [2014] NSWCCA 174 at [61]-[64]. Her Honour referred to what Gleeson CJ had said in R v McCarthy (unreported NSWCCA, 12 August 1994) that:…
Geitonia Pty Ltd v Inner West Council; Gertos v Inner West Council
[2016] NSWCCA 186 Para 71

…s obligation to present the case fairly and completely: Richardson v R (1974) 131 CLR 116; [1974] HCA 19; Subramaniam v R (2004) 79 ALJR 116; [2004] HCA 51.…
Toppi v Lavin
[2016] FCCA 830

…99) 154 FLR 190 R v Gagliardi and Filippidis (1987) 45 SASR 41 R v Hakim (1989) 41 A Crim R 372 R v Westley [2004] NSWCCA 192 Subramaniam v The Queen [2004] HCA 51; (2004) 79 ALJR 116 Tame v New South Wales [2002] HCA 35; (2002) 211 CLR 317 van Soest v Residual Health Management Unit & Ramstead [1999] NZCA 206;…
Hughes v R
[2015] NSWCCA 330

…136; 87 NSWLR 481 Sokolowskyj v R [2014] NSWCCA 55; 239 A Crim R 528 Subramaniam v The Queen [2004] HCA 51; 211 ALR 1 Turkmani v R [2014] NSWCCA 186 Velkoski v The Queen [2014] VSCA 121 Whitehorn v The Queen [1983] HCA 42; 152 CLR 657 Wood v R [2012] NSWCCA 21; 84 NSWLR 581 Category: Principal judgment Parties:…
Commonwealth v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate
[2015] HCA 46 Para 21

…385 [171], 403 [234], 404 [239]. [89]See R v Lucas [1973] VR 693 at 705; Subramaniam v The Queen (2004) 79 ALJR 116 at 127-128 [54]; 211 ALR 1 at 16; [2004] HCA 51; R v Livermore (2006) 67 NSWLR 659 at 669 [47]-[48]. The Unions' further submissions…
Police v Dunstall
[2015] HCA 26 Para 9

…509 at 518-519 per Mason CJ, Dawson, Toohey and McHugh JJ; [1992] HCA 34; Subramaniam v The Queen (2004) 79 ALJR 116 at 122-123 [27]; 211 ALR 1 at 9; [2004] HCA 51; Moti v The Queen (2011) 245 CLR 456 at 463-464 [10]-[11] per French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ; [2011] HCA 50.…
Woods (a pseudonym) v The Queen
[2014] VSCA 233

…[23] Victorian Bar Incorporated Practice Rules , rule 135. See also Subramaniam v The Queen (2004) 79 ALJR 116, [54] 127; (2004) 211 ALR 1, [54] 16…
TS v R
[2014] NSWCCA 174 Para 1

…It has been observed that the procedure for a special hearing under s. 19(2) of the Act has its shortcomings. In Subramaniam v The Queen [2004] HCA 51; (2004) 211 ALR 1 it was observed (at [28]):…
R v Peterson (No. 4)
[2014] NSWSC 1056 Para 1

…who himself is given the opportunity of being found not guilty (in which event the charge will cease to hang over his head) ( Subramaniam v The Queen (2004) 79 ALJR 116). I will keep in mind what the Act describes as the limited evidence available. In this particular case, it seems that I should remember that "the ac…
Police v Dunstall
[2014] SASCFC 85

…CLR 292; Williams v Spautz (1991-1992) 174 CLR 509; Jago v District Court of New South Wales (1989) 168 CLR 23; Barton v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 75; Subramaniam v The Queen (2004) 79 ALJR 116; Police v Sherlock [2009] SASC 64; Police v Pakrou [2008] SASC 364; Police v Jervis (1998) 70 SASR 429, considered.…
W v R
[2014] NSWCCA 110 Para 1

…The trial judge early in his judgment referred to the decision of the High Court in Subramaniam v The Queen [2004] HCA 51; (2004) 79 ALJR 116, in which the High Court had indicated the appropriate directions to be given to a jury at a special hearing. His Honour said that he gave himself such directions. His Hon…
Re Rizzo in the matter of an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions
[2014] VSC 225 Para 1

…d the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice . [at pp 392-6] [footnotes omitted] [emphasis added] 11. In Subramaniam v R [2004] HCA 51; (2004) 211 ALR 1, the High Court said: In Jago v District Court (NSW) Brennan J cautioned against too ready a disposition to grant stays : "The reas…
SM v The Queen
[2013] VSCA 342

…[66]Emphasis added. For a discussion by the High Court of these type of directions, see Subramaniam v The Queen (2004) 211 ALR 1.…
JD v The Queen
[2013] NSWCCA 198 Para 1

…n uncontroversial statements concerning the right to a fair trial, by reference to Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23, and Subramaniam v R (2004) 211 ALR 1. They do not, however, include a reference to a reasonably informed member of the public. That concept appears at [68] in the following context :-…
R v Nuttall
[2013] QCA 219

…120, related Richardson v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 116; [1974] HCA 19, cited Subramanian v The Queen (2004) 79 ALJR 116; [2004] HCA 51, cited R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667 ; [1998] QCA 304, applied TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124; [2002] HCA 46, applied COUNSEL: The applicant appeared on his own behalf W Sofronoff…
SKAF, Bilal - Application under Part 7 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001
[2013] NSWSC 45 Para 1

…that material within the knowledge of an investigating detective is sufficient to engage an obligation of disclosure (citing Subramaniam v The Queen [2004] HCA 51; 79 ALJR 116 at [54], and clause 18 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Guidelines, see now s 15A of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986)…

View all 99 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 18 of 18 shown

R v WRC
[2003] NSWCCA 394 Para 16

…y" to have allowed the matter, which was, it must be emphasized, a special hearing, to proceed[17]. [17] Hakim (1989) 41 A Crim R 372 at 377; R v WRC (2003) 59 NSWLR 273 at 281 [51]-[52].…
R v Subramaniam
[2002] NSWCCA 372 Para 3

…actical or meaningful way, participate in the trial. Accordingly, I do not see any appellable error in his Honour having refused the application." [3][2002] NSWCCA 372 at [42].…
TKWJ v The Queen
[2002] HCA 46 Para 6

…t also be regarded as a material irregularity that "constitutes a miscarriage of justice without the need to consider its effect on the verdict." [22](2002) 212 CLR 124 at 147 [73].…
Dyers v The Queen
[2002] HCA 45 Para 14

…974) 131 CLR 116 at 119; Whitehorn v The Queen (1983) 152 CLR 657 at 663-664, 674; R v Apostilides (1984) 154 CLR 563 at 573‑577; Dyers v The Queen (2002) 210 CLR 285 at 292-293 [11], 298-299 [27], 326-327 [117], [119]. See also R v Thomas (No 2) [1974] 1 NZLR 658. [25](1865) 4 F & F 497 at 499 [176 ER 662 at 663]. […
R v Swaffield
[1998] HCA 1 Para 12

…gs[13]; and, unreasonable delay. [9] Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23 at 57 per Deane J. [10](1989) 168 CLR 23 at 57. [11] R v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159. [12] Barton v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 75 at 100-101 per Gibbs ACJ and Mason J; cf Stephen J at 104. [13] Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292.…
Mackenzie v The Queen
[1996] HCA 35 Para 21

…gether with other relevant matters including considerations of public interest[27], a retrial should in fact take place. [27]cf MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348 at 376-377.…
Walton v Gardiner
[1993] HCA 77 Para 11

…hich exist to administer justice with fairness and impartiality, may be converted into instruments of injustice or unfairness." [7] Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378 at 393 per Mason CJ, Dean and Dawson JJ; see also Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23 at 31 per Mason CJ, 74 per Deane J, 77 per Gaudron J;…
Dietrich v The Queen
[1992] HCA 57 Para 12

…ld (1998) 192 CLR 159. [12] Barton v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 75 at 100-101 per Gibbs ACJ and Mason J; cf Stephen J at 104. [13] Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292.…
Jago v District Court (NSW)
[1989] HCA 46 Para 10

…courts would forfeit public confidence. The granting of orders for permanent stays would inspire cynicism, if not suspicion, in the public mind." [6](1989) 168 CLR 23 at 50.…
Aboud v Attorney-General for New South Wales
[1988] HCATrans 28 Para 9

…nal Appeal to establish that the trial had in fact significantly worsened the appellant's condition. [5] Aboud v Attorney-General for New South Wales (1987) 10 NSWLR 671 at 684 per Kirby P, 692 per McHugh JA.…
Wilde v the Queen
[1988] HCA 6 Para 7

…termine what constitutes such a radical or fundamental error. It may go either to the form of the trial or the manner in which it was conducted." [23](1988) 164 CLR 365 at 373.…
R v Apostilides
[1984] HCA 38 Para 14

…blishing the truth." [24] Richardson v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 116 at 119; Whitehorn v The Queen (1983) 152 CLR 657 at 663-664, 674; R v Apostilides (1984) 154 CLR 563 at 573‑577; Dyers v The Queen (2002) 210 CLR 285 at 292-293 [11], 298-299 [27], 326-327 [117], [119]. See also R v Thomas (No 2) [1974] 1 NZLR 658. […
Whitehorn v the Queen
[1983] HCA 42 Para 14

…cused and with a single view to determining and establishing the truth." [24] Richardson v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 116 at 119; Whitehorn v The Queen (1983) 152 CLR 657 at 663-664, 674; R v Apostilides (1984) 154 CLR 563 at 573‑577; Dyers v The Queen (2002) 210 CLR 285 at 292-293 [11], 298-299 [27], 326-327 [117], [1…
Barton v the Queen
[1980] HCA 48 Para 11

…, Dean and Dawson JJ; see also Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23 at 31 per Mason CJ, 74 per Deane J, 77 per Gaudron J; Barton v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 75 at 95-96 per Gibbs ACJ and Mason J. [8](1993) 177 CLR 378 at 393.…
Richardson v The Queen
[1974] HCA 19 Para 14

…on must be conducted with fairness towards the accused and with a single view to determining and establishing the truth." [24] Richardson v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 116 at 119; Whitehorn v The Queen (1983) 152 CLR 657 at 663-664, 674; R v Apostilides (1984) 154 CLR 563 at 573‑577; Dyers v The Queen (2002) 210 CLR 285…
Domican v R
[1992] HCA 13 Para 24

…direction : What is required is that the explanation be, and have the authority of an explanation by the trial judge[20]. [20]cf Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555 at 562.…
Whitehorn v The Queen
176 ER 662 Para 14

…2002) 210 CLR 285 at 292-293 [11], 298-299 [27], 326-327 [117], [119]. See also R v Thomas (No 2) [1974] 1 NZLR 658. [25](1865) 4 F & F 497 at 499 [176 ER 662 at 663]. [26][1973] VR 693 at 696.…
[1974] 1 NZLR 658
[1974] 1 NZLR 658 Para 14

…(1984) 154 CLR 563 at 573‑577; Dyers v The Queen (2002) 210 CLR 285 at 292-293 [11], 298-299 [27], 326-327 [117], [119]. See also R v Thomas (No 2) [1974] 1 NZLR 658. [25](1865) 4 F & F 497 at 499 [176 ER 662 at 663]. [26][1973] VR 693 at 696.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 3

Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW)
19, 21(4) 3 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 4)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 4)