Legal Research
Cases
The Queen v Peters (a Pseudonym)

The Queen v Peters (a Pseudonym)

Case [2018] VSCA 115 9 May 2018

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Public Interest Immunity

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2018 0025

THE QUEEN

LINTON PETERS (a pseudonym)[1]

[1]To ensure that there is no possibility of identification, this judgment has been anonymised by the adoption of a pseudonym in place of the name of the respondent.

---

JUDGES:	OSBORN, KAYE and NIALL JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	12 April 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 May 2018
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSCA 115
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	Case stated by order of the Honourable Justice Beale dated 15 February 2018 and amended on 1 May 2018

---

CASE STATED – Public interest immunity – Form of questions – Amendment of questions reserved – Whether findings of fact open to trial judge – Whether conclusion relating to evidence capable of raising a public interest in the accused’s fair trial – Matter remitted to trial judge for further consideration having regard to answers to the questions reserved.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M J Rochford QC with Ms N Warda	Mr John Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P J Morrisey SC with Ms G Morgan	Stephen Andrianakis & Associates
For the Commonwealth	Mr T Howe QC with Ms I Sekler	Australian Government Solicitor
For the Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police	Mr E M Nekvapil	Victorian Government Solicitor

OSBORN JA

KAYE JA

NIALL JA:

Linton Peters (a pseudonym) is charged with the murder of AB.

The murder charge is proceeding through pre-trial steps in the Trial Division of this Court.

It is not disputed that Peters shot AB causing his death. The defence seeks to put in issue self-defence.

The Crown does not concede that the evidence currently available discharges the evidential burden upon the defence of raising the issue of self-defence by presenting or pointing to evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility of the existence of facts that if they existed, would establish self-defence.[2]
[2]Crimes Act 1958, s 322I(1).

The defence relies upon a body of information, principally derived from Victoria Police (‘Vic Pol’) documentation which demonstrates a background of dispute which would provide a motive for hostility on the part of AB towards Peters at the time of the fatal confrontation which culminated in the shooting.

The defence has sought production of documentation from the Commonwealth with respect to information bearing on the background of dispute.

In turn, the Commonwealth has claimed public interest immunity (‘PII’) with respect to certain information held by it.

That claim fell to be decided in accordance with s 130 of the Evidence Act 2008, which applied by reason of the extended operation given to it by s 131A.

Section 130 provides:

130 Exclusion of evidence of matters of state
(1)If the public interest in admitting into evidence information or a document that relates to matters of state is outweighed by the public interest in preserving secrecy or confidentiality in relation to the information or document, the court may direct that the information or document not…

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 The Queen v Peters (a Pseudonym)

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Peters (a Pseudonym) [2018] VSCA 115
Case: [2018] VSCA 115
Decision Date: 9 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queen v Peters (a Pseudonym) involved a dispute concerning the application of public interest immunity in the context of a criminal trial. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the appellant, referred to as Peters, challenged the trial judge's handling of a public interest immunity certificate. The crux of the dispute was whether the trial judge should have made factual findings about the evidence in question and whether those findings could affect the accused's right to a fair trial.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge was required to make findings of fact regarding the evidence before him, and if so, whether those findings could influence the decision on whether the public interest immunity certificate should be upheld. Additionally, the court had to determine if the conclusions derived from such evidence could potentially prejudice the fairness of the trial. The appellant argued that the trial judge should have made specific findings of fact to ensure the proper application of public interest immunity.

The court found that the trial judge was not obligated to make factual findings about the evidence when deciding on the public interest immunity certificate. However, it emphasised that if the evidence could potentially prejudice the fairness of the trial, those findings would be necessary. The court concluded that the trial judge's decision should be reconsidered in light of the answers to the questions reserved. It was determined that the matter should be remitted to the trial judge for further consideration, taking into account the answers to the questions that had been reserved. This decision ensures that the balance between public interest and the accused's right to a fair trial is properly maintained.

Orders