Criminal Law—Arrest—Arrested person to be taken before a justice as soon as practicable—Delay—Desire of arresting officer to question arrested person—Justices Act 1959 (Tas.), s. 34A(1)—Criminal Code 1924 (Tas.), s. 303(1). Criminal Law (Tas.)—Practice—Appeal by Attorney-General to Court of Criminal Appeal from acquittal—Right of appeal on question of law alone—Wrongful rejection of evidence in exercise of discretion—Whether question of law alone—Criminal Code 1924 (Tas.), s. 401(2)(b).
Decisions
GIBBS C.J.: The applicant was indicted before the Supreme Court of Tasmania on twenty-nine counts - fifteen of burglary and fourteen of stealing. At the commencement of the trial counsel for the accused objected to the admission in evidence of a number of records of interview containing confessions allegedly made to the police by the applicant. After a voir dire the learned trial judge ruled that the records of interview which related to twenty-six of the counts should not be admitted in evidence. The Crown Prosecutor then offered no evidence on those counts and the jury by direction brought in a verdict of not guilty on each of those counts. The applicant pleaded guilty to the remaining three counts. Thereafter the Attorney-General for Tasmania applied for leave to appeal, under s.401(2)(b) of the Criminal Code 1924 (Tas.), as amended, against the acquittal of the applicant on each of the twenty-six counts. The Court of Criminal Appeal granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal and ordered that the applicant be retried on the twenty-six counts. The applicant now applies to this Court for special leave to appeal against that decision.
2. In the early hours of the morning of 17 May 1984 police at Scottsdale, a town in the north of Tasmania, received information that the applicant had been seen in hotel premises at Scottsdale apparently in the act of committing a burglary. The applicant fled from the scene in a motor vehicle and was eventually arrested after his car had run off the road and he had attempted to escape into the bush. The arrest was made at about 6.00 a.m. by Constable Gibson who told the applicant that he was satisfied that he was responsible for several burglaries in the northern area of Tasmania. The applicant was then taken to the police station at Scottsdale and was kept there until he could be interviewed by officers of the C.I.B. who had to come from Launceston. Those officers, Detective Sergeant Otley and Detective Canning, arrived at about 8.45 a.m. Sergeant Otley told the applicant that he wanted to speak to him about matters that had occurred at Scottsdale that morning or on the evening before. In the circumstances the learned trial judge concluded that the applicant was taken into police custody only for those crimes which he had committed at Scottsdale - namely, the crimes the subject of counts twenty-seven to twenty-nine in the indictment. The applicant was…
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 Williams v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Williams v The Queen [1986] HCA 88
Case
[1986] HCA 88
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered the appeal of Williams against the conviction for murder. The appellant had been found guilty of murder by a jury in the Supreme Court of Queensland and sentenced to life imprisonment. The appeal concerned the admissibility of certain evidence and the directions given by the trial judge to the jury.
The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence obtained from the appellant under duress, and whether the judge's directions to the jury regarding the issue of self-defence were adequate and properly explained the onus of proof. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the evidence, which included a confession, was obtained in circumstances that rendered it inadmissible due to unfair prejudice or impropriety.
The High Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the trial judge had erred in admitting the confession. The Court reasoned that the confession was obtained in circumstances where the appellant was subjected to oppressive questioning and was not afforded his rights, rendering it involuntary and therefore inadmissible. Furthermore, the Court found that the directions on self-defence were insufficient, failing to adequately convey to the jury the standard of proof required for the prosecution to disprove self-defence once raised. The principles of fairness and the requirement for voluntary confessions were central to the Court's determination.
Consequently, the High Court quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial.