The King v Ryan Churchill (a pseudonym) - [2025] HCATrans 10

[2025] HCATrans 010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M94 of 2024

B e t w e e n -
THE KING
Appellant
and
RYAN CHURCHILL (A PSEUDONYM)
Respondent

GAGELER CJ
GORDON J
GLEESON J
JAGOT J
BEECH‑JONES J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON FRIDAY, 14 FEBRUARY 2025, AT 9.59 AM

MR B.F. KISSANE, KC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend MS S.C. CLANCY for the appellant. (instructed by Office of Public Prosecutions (Vic))

MR B.W. WALKER, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friends MS R.B. SHANN, SC and MS H.L. CANHAM for the respondent. (instructed by Doogue + George Defence Lawyers)

MR KISSANE: Thank you, Mr Walker. Mr Kissane.

MR KISSANE: Thank you, your Honour. This appeal raises the question of the use of distress evidence in a sexual assault trial and what the court is required to direct the jury about that evidence.

This was a case where the trial judge was obliged to direct the jury about the use of distress evidence, and the reason for that is that the request was made by the prosecutor pursuant to section 12 of the Jury Directions Act. The scheme of giving directions in Victoria is governed by that Act, and there are three principal sections that set out how the court goes about determining that. They are found in the joint book of authorities at pages 32, 33 and 34 ‑ ‑ ‑

GAGELER CJ: We have separate prints.

MR KISSANE: You have the Act, which is probably easier to use, your Honours – section 12. The way it works is that section 12 requires the prosecution and defence to “request” that the trial judge give a direction in relation to the:

(a)matters in issue; and
(b)the evidence in trial relevant to the matters in issue.

And in this case the prosecutor requested a direction in relation to the distress evidence. What happened in the particular trial was that the judge, having heard the request, said, well, I will wait to hear what counsel say in their final addresses to the jury and then I will make a decision about that. And his Honour ultimately decided to give a direction relating to distress. It is perhaps useful, when considering this case, to keep in mind the direction that his Honour gave.

GAGELER CJ: Before you get there, you were taking us to the Act. You said there were three sections in play.

MR KISSANE: Yes, certainly, your Honour.

GAGELER CJ: You started with section 12.

MR KISSANE: Section 12. Section 14 is simply that the trial judge has to give the directions that are requested.

GORDON J:

unless there are good reasons for not doing so.

MR KISSANE: Yes, indeed. So, it means the trial judge has to consider the application, and generally speaking, unless there are good reasons not to give…

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 The King v Ryan Churchill (a pseudonym) 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: [2025] HCATrans 10
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered the appeal of Ryan Churchill (a pseudonym) against his conviction for a serious criminal offence. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained during a police investigation.

The High Court was required to determine whether the evidence in question was obtained in contravention of the *Australian Crime Commission Act 2002* (Cth) and, if so, whether it should have been admitted into evidence at trial. A further issue was whether the trial judge had erred in their directions to the jury regarding the use of that evidence.

The Court analysed the provisions of the *Australian Crime Commission Act 2002* (Cth) concerning the powers of the Australian Crime Commission and the admissibility of evidence obtained by it. It applied principles of statutory interpretation to ascertain the scope of these provisions and the circumstances under which evidence might be excluded. The Court also considered the principles governing judicial discretion to admit or exclude evidence, particularly where there has been a contravention of statutory provisions. The Court found that the evidence was not obtained in contravention of the Act and that the trial judge's directions were adequate.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction.

Orders