Nicholls v The Queen [2005] HCA 1

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GLEESON CJ,

McHUGH, GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE, CALLINAN AND HEYDON JJ

THOMAS NICHOLLS APPELLANT

AND

THE QUEEN RESPONDENT

Nicholls v The Queen

[2005] HCA 1

3 February 2005

P79/2003

ORDER

Appeal dismissed.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of Western Australia

Representation:

J A Thomson for the appellant (instructed by Mullins Handcock)

S E Stone with L J Vanderende for the respondent (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (WA))

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GLEESON CJ,

McHUGH, GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE, CALLINAN AND HEYDON JJ

MARTIN GRAEME COATES APPELLANT

AND

THE QUEEN RESPONDENT

Coates v The Queen

3 February 2005

P81/2003

ORDER

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Set aside the order of the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia made on 22 October 2002 in CCA 210/00 and in its place order that:

(a) the appellant's appeal to that Court be allowed;

(b) the appellant's conviction be quashed; and

(c) there be a new trial.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of Western Australia

Representation:

M J McCusker QC with J J Edelman for the appellant (instructed by Clark Whyte)

S E Stone with L J Vanderende for the respondent (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (WA))

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Nicholls v The Queen; Coates v The Queen

Criminal law – Evidence – Admissibility of admissions made off-video during interview with accused – Whether reasonable excuse for not videotaping admissions – Criminal Code (WA), s 570D(2)(b), (4).

Criminal law – Evidence ­– Admissibility of evidence of prior inconsistent statement of witness – Whether evidence of statement went to issue – Whether admissible as exception to rule against admission of collateral statements – Whether exceptions of bias, interest or corruption applicable – Whether the detail of alleged statement indicating an exception to the collateral evidence rule must be put specifically to the witness in cross-examination.