MR J.R. McKECHNIE, QC: If your Honours please, I appear with MS G.A. ARCHER for the respondent (instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Western Australia)).

TOOHEY J: Yes, Mr Roberts-Smith.

MR ROBERTS-SMITH: Your Honours, it is common ground that the testimony of Sergeant John Arnold, on which Inspector Ray Willers was convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice, was uncorroborated in this case. The Court of Criminal Appeal, indeed, had expressly noted at page 78, lines 8 to 16, that there was no corroboration and, indeed, his Honour Justice Franklyn in so finding made the observation that for that reason of itself, there would be little point in the trial judge directing the jury to look for corroboration and then pointing out to them that there was none to be found.

HAYNE J: Why was Arnold’s evidence open to requiring a special warning to the jury? He had stood his trial and been acquitted, had he not?

MR ROBERTS-SMITH: He had been. But on any view and, indeed, on Arnold’s own evidence, he was a man who was very much involved with the commission, on the Crown case, of Willers’ offence in a practical sense or otherwise was a participant in it. Indeed, if one can look at it in these terms, it was Arnold, on the Crown case, who actually did the mechanics of what, in the end, amounted to, on the Crown case, that attempt to pervert the course of justice by having a charge against Willers’ son reduced and dealt with in a different way.

The point your Honour raises as to the charge against Sergeant Arnold earlier being heard and resulting in an acquittal in respect of him was, of course, one of the bases upon which the Court of Criminal Appeal, and particularly Justice Franklyn, took the view that he was, therefore, not a person who required a special warning, or a particular warning from the trial judge to the jury.

HAYNE J: Against what would the jury have been warned?

MR ROBERTS-SMITH: The sort of warning, in our submission, which was required in this case was a warning that emphasised, or at least pointed out, that Sergeant Arnold was a person, because of his involvement in the mechanics of that, who, therefore, had a reason - or the jury, perhaps to put it more accurately, might conclude may have a reason to protect his own interests and to do so in a way…

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 Willers v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Willers v The Queen [1997] HCATrans 291
Case: [1997] HCATrans 291
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Mr. Willers, against a conviction for conspiracy to defraud. The prosecution alleged that Mr. Willers, along with others, engaged in a scheme to defraud the Commonwealth by dishonestly obtaining financial benefits under the Medicare Benefits Schedule. The case involved complex issues of evidence and the interpretation of criminal statutes.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the trial judge had erred in admitting certain evidence, specifically a document that was alleged to be a confession, and whether the jury had been adequately directed on the elements of the offence of conspiracy to defraud. The Court also had to consider the proper application of the principles governing the admissibility of evidence obtained in circumstances that might raise questions of privilege or impropriety.

The High Court analysed the admissibility of the disputed document, applying established principles regarding confessions and the voluntariness of statements. It considered whether the document, even if obtained improperly, should have been excluded in the exercise of the court's discretion. Furthermore, the Court examined the jury directions, focusing on whether they accurately conveyed the requirement for the prosecution to prove an agreement between two or more persons to defraud the Commonwealth, and the dishonest intent of the conspirators. The Court ultimately found that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the evidence and that the jury directions were sufficient.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of Mr. Willers was upheld.

Orders