Kamleh v The Queen [2005] HCA 2

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GLEESON CJ,

McHUGH, KIRBY, HAYNE AND HEYDON JJ

JAMIL YOUSEF KAMLEH APPELLANT

AND

THE QUEEN RESPONDENT

Kamleh v The Queen [2005] HCA 2

3 February 2005

A30/2004

ORDER

Appeal dismissed.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of South Australia

Representation:

B J Powell QC with C J Caldicott for the appellant (instructed by Caldicott & Co)

W J Abraham QC with S McDonald for the respondent (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (South Australia))

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

CATCHWORDS

Kamleh v The Queen

Criminal law – Evidence – Hearsay – Appellant charged with murder – Alleged accomplice not called as witness – Admissibility of evidence of out-of-court statements to prove relevant facts other than the truth of the representations made in the statements – Whether evidence of out-of-court statements adduced to prove intention is admissible – Walton v The Queen (1989) 166 CLR 283 discussed.

Evidence – Hearsay – Criminal law – Admissibility of out-of-court statements to prove relevant facts other than the truth of the representations made in the statements – Walton v The Queen (1989) 166 CLR 283 discussed.

1. GLEESON CJ AND McHUGH J. Following a trial in the Supreme Court of South Australia before Gray J, sitting without a jury, the appellant was convicted of two offences of murder[1]. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life, and a non-parole period of 27 years was fixed. An appeal against conviction was dismissed by the South Australian Court of Criminal Appeal[2]. A co-offender, Natale Zappia, was tried separately, and convicted of two offences of manslaughter. Neither the appellant nor Zappia gave evidence at the trial of the appellant. The issue in the present appeal concerns the admissibility at that trial of evidence of certain statements made out of court by Zappia.