Webster v The Queen [No 4] - [2013] WASC 479

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: WEBSTER -v- THE QUEEN [No 4] [2013] WASC 479

CORAM: JENKINS J

HEARD: 24 OCTOBER 2013

DELIVERED : 13 NOVEMBER 2013

PUBLISHED : 14 FEBRUARY 2014

FILE NO/S: INS 26 of 2012

BETWEEN: JAMES WEBSTER
Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Offender's application for stay of convictions before sentence - Claim for public interest immunity by Crown witness called by offender to give evidence at hearing of application - Favourable answers over which privilege claimed would not enable offender to obtain a stay of convictions - No basis for a stay being granted

Legislation:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 15GI(1), pt 1AB
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 90, s 98
Customs Act 1901 (Cth)

Result:

Claim for public interest immunity upheld
Application for stay dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant:     Mr D J McKenzie
Respondent:     Ms R V C Fogliani
The Commissioner of
the Australian Federal
Police:     Ms W M Endebrock Brown

Solicitors:

Applicant:     David McKenzie Legal Pty Ltd
Respondent:     Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
The Commissioner of
the Australian Federal
Police:     Australian Government Solicitor

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Maxwell v The Queen [1996] HCA 46; (1996) 184 CLR 501
Meissner v The Queen [1995] HCA 41; (1995) 184 CLR 132
Nelson v Haynes [2003] WASCA 73; (2003) 27 WAR 154
Ridgeway v The Queen [1995] HCA 66; (1995) 184 CLR 19
Webster v The Queen [No 2] [2013] WASC 73

JENKINS J:
(These reasons were delivered orally and have been edited from transcript)

Application for stay - claim for public interest immunity

The applicant, James Webster, applied for a stay of criminal charges brought against him by the Crown in right of the Commonwealth. In the course of the hearing of the application Mr Webster called Phillip John Cormack, a federal agent with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to give evidence. During the course of Mr Cormack's evidence he declined to answer a number of questions on the grounds of public interest immunity. These are my reasons for allowing that claim in respect of each of the answers which Mr Cormack declined to give. As will become clear the reasons also mean that the application for a stay must fail.

Background

The background to this matter is set out in the decision of Hall J, in respect of Mr Webster’s application to withdraw his pleas of guilty to the same criminal charges: Webster v The Queen [No 2] [2013] WASC 73. I will not repeat that background, but Hall J's decision should be read in conjunction with these reasons.
On 3 April 2013 Mr Webster's sentencing was adjourned pending his appeal against Hall J's decision to refuse his application to withdraw his pleas of guilty to his charges. By letter dated 8 May 2013 Mr Webster sought consideration of his application for a permanent stay. He had made the application for a stay on 21 January 2013 but…

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 Webster v The Queen [No 4]

Details

AGLC: Webster v The Queen [No 4] [2013] WASC 479
Case: [2013] WASC 479
Decision Date: 14 FEBRUARY 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Webster v The Queen [No 4], the applicant sought a stay of convictions before sentencing, and the Crown sought to prevent a witness from testifying due to claims of public interest immunity. The applicant's primary contention was that the witness's evidence, which the Crown sought to protect, was necessary to secure a stay of convictions. The case came before the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining the admissibility of the evidence and whether it could influence the granting of a stay of convictions.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the public interest immunity claim by the Crown regarding the witness's testimony was justified, and if so, whether the applicant could still obtain a stay of convictions despite the privileged nature of the evidence. The court examined whether the answers from the witness, if given, would provide sufficient grounds for the applicant to secure a stay of convictions. It was pivotal to ascertain if the privileged information was indispensable to the applicant's case for a stay.

The High Court concluded that the witness's answers, even if favourable to the applicant, would not enable him to obtain a stay of convictions. The court held that the public interest immunity claim by the Crown was valid, and therefore, the witness's testimony could not be compelled. Consequently, the court found no basis to grant a stay of convictions to the applicant, affirming the lower court's decision. The court's reasoning was grounded in the principle that the public interest in protecting sensitive information could override the applicant's right to present a particular case for a stay of convictions.

Orders