Velevski v The Queen - [2001] HCATrans 155

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S197 of 2000

B e t w e e n -
LJUBE VELEVSKI
Appellant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent

GLEESON CJ
GAUDRON J
GUMMOW J
HAYNE J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 30 MAY 2001, AT 10.16 AM

MR S.J. ODGERS, SC: May it please the Court, I appear for the appellant with my learned friend, MR A.C. HAESLER. (instructed by Murphy’s Lawyers Inc)

MR A.M. BLACKMORE: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR M.C. MARIEN, for the respondent. (instructed by S.E. O’Connor, Director of Public Prosecutions (New South Wales))

GLEESON CJ: Yes, Mr Odgers.

MR ODGERS: Your Honours, the appellant has filed written submissions, a reply, a chronology, some additional transcript, which I trust your Honours have. In addition, in discussions with the respondent, to assist your Honours, we thought it may be helpful to provide a document which was the Crown’s submissions, Part A in the Court of Criminal Appeal, which summarised the evidence. It is a 76‑page document. I have provided it to your Honours if that is to be of some assistance in looking at the totality of the evidence. Of course, only parts of the transcript have been put in the appeal books. It has been annotated on the side of the document with the relevant appeal book numbers where that part of the transcript is in the appeal books.

In addition, your Honours, in the submissions, we flagged that we would be making an application for leave to add an additional ground, that is, a ground which we numbered 5 in the written submissions, but in an amended notice of appeal which we have prepared, it is paragraph (e). If I can hand up to your Honours – and I apologise, I only have the original copy – an amended notice of appeal with the flagged additional ground of appeal.

GLEESON CJ: We can hear what you have to say in argument about this and we will hear what Mr Blackmore has to say and we will deal with that in due course.

MR ODGERS: Thank you, your Honour. I will proceed on that basis. If I can follow the order that was followed in the written submissions and begin with ground 2. The first point I should make is that in respect of the question of objection being taken at the trial, there were two relevant objections which have been referred to in the written submissions, but if I could take your Honours to this quickly, and I will deal with the issue of admissibility generally. The objections, firstly, in appeal book 2 at page 267.

Of course, your Honours appreciate that the global attack that is made by the appellant is that substantial parts of the opinions expressed by the experts were inadmissible. There was no global objection taken by defence…

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 Velevski v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Velevski v The Queen [2001] HCATrans 155
Case: [2001] HCATrans 155
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Mr. Velevski against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence during his trial.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of the appellant's prior convictions and prior bad character. This involved determining whether the prejudicial effect of this evidence outweighed its probative value, and whether it was properly admitted under the rules of evidence, particularly concerning propensity evidence.

The Court reasoned that the admission of evidence of prior convictions and bad character, which suggested a propensity on the part of the appellant to commit the offence charged, was an error. Such evidence, if admitted, could lead the jury to infer guilt based on past behaviour rather than on the evidence relating to the specific offence. The Court applied the principle that evidence of prior convictions is generally inadmissible to prove that a person committed the offence with which they are presently charged, unless it has a specific probative value beyond merely showing a disposition to commit the crime. The Court found that the evidence admitted in this case did not meet that threshold and was therefore unfairly prejudicial to the appellant.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

Orders