Criminal Law (A.C.T.)—Murder—Jurisdiction—Death in Territory or cause of death occurring in Territory—Facts concerning locality—Standard of proof—Special verdict upon locality—Crimes Act 1900 (N.S.W.), s. 2 5. Evidence—Similar facts—Admissibility—Criminal trial—Murder—Death of sisters by gunshot wounds to head—Discovery of bodies in burned-out car—Accused later convicted of murdering another sister and her fami ly by gunshot wounds to head—Attempt to burn house in which bodies found—Admissibility of evidence of later killings on trial for earlier offences.
Decisions
MASON C.J. AND DAWSON J. This is an application for special leave to appeal from an order of the Full Court of the Federal Court (Forster, Everett and Miles JJ.) dismissing the applicant's appeal from his convictions in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on charges of murdering two sisters, Mirjana and Ljiljana Milosevic, on 30 December 1981. The application raises two questions for determination. They relate, first, to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory to entertain the proceedings and, secondly, to the admissibility of similar fact evidence relating to the applicant's participation in the killing of the four occupants of a house at Hemmings Crescent, Richardson, in the Australian Capital Territory on 28 March 1984. It is convenient to begin with an account of the circumstances in which the alleged offences took place.
2. On 30 December 1981 the bodies of the deceased Mirjana and Ljiljana Milosevic were found in a burned-out motor car which had collided with a tree adjacent to the Monaro Highway in the Australian Capital Territory. The applicant, who had been driving the car, gave an account to police that he was driving along the Monaro Highway with the two girls as passengers, that he was dazzled by the lights of an oncoming car and that, as a consequence, his car left the road and struck a tree when travelling at a speed of between 40 and 45 miles per hour. According to the applicant, the car burst into flames; he was able to get out but was unable to get the two girls out and they were burned to death. The matter was not then investigated thoroughly by the police and no steps were taken by the police against the applicant until some years later, after they became aware of his participation in the killing of the four occupants of the house at Hemmings Crescent, Richardson. The occupants of that house were Radmilla Milosevic, a sister of Mirjana and Ljiljana, her de facto husband and their two children. Each of these four persons was shot in the head with a .22 calibre rifle. An attempt was made, using petrol, kerosene and dieseline, to set fire to the house in which the bodies were found. The applicant admitted to police that he had murdered the four persons and he was later convicted of those murders. The applicant's connection…
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 Thompson v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Thompson v The Queen [1989] HCA 30
Case
[1989] HCA 30
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Thompson v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Thompson, against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained during a police interview and the subsequent application of the *Criminal Investigation Act 1981* (NSW).
The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence derived from the applicant's statements made during a police interview, despite concerns about the voluntariness of those statements and compliance with statutory requirements. Specifically, the court had to consider the scope of the exclusionary rule concerning improperly or illegally obtained evidence and the discretion of the trial judge to admit such evidence in the interests of justice.
The court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of the *Criminal Investigation Act 1981* (NSW) and the common law principles governing the admission of evidence. Mason C.J. and Brennan J, in a joint judgment, held that the trial judge had correctly exercised their discretion in admitting the evidence, finding that while there may have been some technical breaches of the Act, the evidence was not unfairly prejudicial to the applicant and its probative value was significant. Deane and Dawson JJ concurred, emphasizing that the exclusionary discretion should not be exercised lightly and that the public interest in bringing offenders to justice weighed heavily in favour of admission. Gaudron J, while agreeing with the outcome, expressed reservations about the extent to which the Act had been complied with.
The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was affirmed.