PARNELL V. THE QUEEN

IN| THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA .

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Oral Judgment delivered at... GNDM BY evsesscsssnenicenesennee on... THURSDAY... APRIL..L9Z3 eeenrnee

RM_72/20133

PARNELL

ve

ORDER

Appeal dismissed.

A712

PARNELL

THE

SUKEN

BARWICK C.J.

PARNELL

THE QUEEN

The appellant was convicted in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory of manslaughter:

: He relies on three grounds in support of his appeal to this Court against his conviction. The first is as to- the admission of evidence of incriminating statements made by him to police officers. :

I have listened carefully to all that Mr. McGregor has said on this point and I see no need to go through the evidence, the essential portions of which have been extracted for us in copies which we have been able to study.

I see no reason to disturb the learned trial judge's admission of the record of interview which was had with the police officers. I do not think that the evidence led for

"the accused, even if fully accepted, established that the statements made to the accused constituted an inducement of the statements which he subsequently made to the police officers

and which are recorded in the record of interview.

In any case, I do not think the trial judge was in error in being satisfied that if there were a relevant inducement the means by which.the statements made by the accused - were obtained, were in fact likely to induce an untrue admission of guilt to be made by him.

Consequently, in my opinion, the first ground of appeal fails. =

The second submission is somewhat difficult of expression, but I do not think I do the submission any violence if I express it as a submission that the trial judge was in error in leaving to the jury as a possible issue of fact that the appellant aimed the rifle at his father. This submission is founded on a fact actually not in.evidence, namely, that at an earlier trial for murder the jury returned a verdict of not guilty of murder but indicated that they were unable to agree on a verdict of manslaughter. Although there was no plea in this trial of autrefois acquit or of issue estoppel denying the Crown the ability to prosecute the indictment for manslaughter it was said that an issue of fact to be decided in the earlier trial was whether the appellant had aimed the rifle at his father, and that upon acquittal on the charge of murder that issue must be taken to have been found in favour of the appellant. Therefore, the Crown,-it was said, could not leter assert against the appellant that he had so aimed the rifle. Consequently, so the argument ran, the trial judge