Criminal Law—Murder—Prisoner under sentence of death alleged to be insane—Reprieve—Refused by trial judge—Application for special leave to appeal to High Court—Stay of execution pending hearing of application—Crimes Act 1958 (Vict.), ss. 496, 497*—Mental Health Act 1959 (Vict.), s. 52**. Lunacy—Prisoner under sentence of death—Petition to State Supreme Court for judicial inquiry into sanity—Petition dismissed—Application for special leave to appeal to High Court—Mental Hygiene Act 1958 (Vict.), s. 111.
Decisions
DIXON C.J.: We are prepared to grant an adjournment of these applications without giving any consideration to or expressing any opinion as to the grounds upon which they are to be based, but entirely so that the authority of this Court may be maintained and we may have another opportunity of considering it. (at p624)
2. We shall accordingly order that the execution of the prisoner fixed for tomorrow morning be not carried out but be stayed pending the disposal of the applications to this Court for special leave and of any appeal to this Court in consequence of such applications. (at p624)
3. Mr. Solicitor, may we then have your undertaking that that will be enough? (at p624)
4. (Sir Henry Winneke Q.C. I cannot imagine that there would be any trouble about that, your Honour. This Court has made an order and that is all. There is also his Excellency's warrant directed to the Sheriff.) (at p624)
5. Something has to be done about that. (at p624)
6. (Sir Henry Winneke Q.C. I feel I cannot give an undertaking, not being instructed. Perhaps it might be better if your Honours would make a complete order and then there would be no question about it.) (at p625)
7. At the foot of the order we have already pronounced, we will add that we will order that the Chief Secretary and the Sheriff and his deputy or deputies be restrained accordingly. (at p625)
8. We will adjourn these applications now to Tuesday next, at half past ten at Darlinghurst, and we will adjourn the Court. (at p625)
9. Order accordingly. (at p625)
10. The applications came on for hearing before Dixon C.J., Kitto, Taylor, Menzies and Owen JJ. at Sydney on 6th November 1962. The Mental Health Act 1959 came into operation on 1st November 1962. (at p625)
11. E. D. Lloyd, for the applicant Scott. (at p625)
12. J. A. Nimmo Q.C. (with him D. P. Derham, P. Brett and J. H. Phillips) for the prisoner. (at p625)
13. B. J. Shaw, for the respondents. (at p625)
14. J. A. Nimmo Q.C. The executive of the State of Victoria has acknowledged that the prisoner is now either mentally ill or intellectually defective within the meaning of s. 52 of the Mental Health Act 1959 and has commuted the sentence of death. As we are informed 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 Tait v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Tait v The Queen [1962] HCA 57
Case
[1962] HCA 57
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Tait v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Tait, against his conviction for murder. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain evidence and the directions given by the trial judge to the jury.
The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence obtained from the applicant under duress, and whether the judge's directions to the jury regarding the applicant's alleged confession and the defence of self-defence were adequate and correct in law.
The Court, comprising Dixon C.J., Kitto, Taylor, Menzies and Owen JJ. (and in a separate judgment, Dixon C.J., McTiernan, Kitto, Taylor and Windeyer JJ.), examined the principles governing the admissibility of confessions obtained under duress, particularly in light of the common law rules and the relevant statutory provisions. The judges considered whether the evidence in question had been obtained in circumstances that rendered it unfairly prejudicial to the applicant. Furthermore, the Court analysed the requirements for a valid direction on self-defence, including the need to adequately explain the subjective and objective elements of the defence and the burden of proof.
The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.