The Queen v Hillier [2007] HCA 13

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GLEESON CJ,

GUMMOW, HAYNE, CALLINAN AND CRENNAN JJ

THE QUEEN APPLICANT

AND

STEVEN WAYNE HILLIER RESPONDENT

The Queen v Hillier [2007] HCA 13

22 March 2007

C1/2006

ORDER

1. Special leave to appeal is granted.

2. The appeal is treated as instituted and heard instanter and allowed.

3. The orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory made on 15 December 2005 are set aside and the matter is remitted to that Court for rehearing.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

Representation

D F Jackson QC with P J de Veau for the applicant (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT))

P F Tehan QC with W P Lowe for the respondent (instructed by Nelson & Co)

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

CATCHWORDS

The Queen v Hillier

Criminal law – Criminal appeals – The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory against his conviction for murder – The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and entered verdict of acquittal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in quashing the verdict of the jury – Nature of appellate jurisdiction where no common form criminal appeal statute is enacted – Extent of duties and powers given to the Court of Appeal under Pt 2A of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) – Principles governing the exercise of those duties and powers – Whether in this case it would have been unjust or unsafe for the Court of Appeal to allow the verdict to stand.

Criminal law – Criminal appeals – Prosecution appeal to the High Court of Australia against verdict of acquittal entered by intermediate appellate court – Circumstances in which special leave will be granted.

Criminal law – Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reasoning that, because evidence looked at in isolation from other evidence was consistent with innocence, the conviction should be quashed – Whether the Court of Appeal should have considered whether it was open to the jury, on consideration of the whole of the evidence, to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent was guilty.