BROWN V. THE QUEEN

IN| THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

ORAL judgment delivered at.....

OM sD eDa Yes ARE RAO A AK ADL soe

M,72/20193

Comment ly Hy.

Of hecuseD — VAAE CESS AR) Ley tmMmOdeeaTE LANGUAGE ~ Poses qauity

Ger To Heme o Comments. ,

feel iS =

|

THE QUEEN

Application for special leave to appeal refused.

BROWN

ve

THE_QUEEN

TUDGMENT BARWICK C.J. ORAL

BROWN Ve

THE QUEEN

In my opinion, this is not a case for the grant of special leave. The sugested ground of appeal is that the trial miscarried because the trial judge, in giving his reasons for ruling on the voir dire that a confessional statement was admissible as voluntary, expressed his firm view as to the credibility of the accused as to matters of which the accused had given evidence before him. It is not suggested here that such reasons may not be given, that is to say the judge may not express himself in giving judgment on the voir dire. The objection is to what is claimed to be the unnecessarily immoderate language in which the judge expressed himself. It is said that there was at least a possibility that the jury would have heard of the judge's expression, the possibility against which it is submitted the trial judge ought to have taken the precaution of separating

the jury from the public for the balance of what in the event

proved to be a long trial. No request, however, was made

at the time that this course be followed although the

possibility of the judge's reasons being reported in the icocal community was in counsel's mind.

What a judge should have or should not have said in giving his reasons on the voir dire in a criminal trial can only be decided in the circumstances of each case. No doubt the possibility that his reasons may reach the jury's eyes or ears in the circumstances of the trial and bearing in mind the public interest in it must be a factor in the jadge's choice of language in expressing himself and in his exercise of discretion as to what steps, if any, he may take to keep what he has said from the eyes or ears of the jury.