Wilson v The Queen [1970] HCA 17

High Court of Australia Barwick C.J. McTiernan, Menzies, Owen and Walsh JJ. Wilson v The Queen [1970] HCA 17

ORDER Application for special leave refused.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

June 17 Barwick C.J.

The applicant was convicted before the Supreme Court of Victoria on 24th November 1969 of the murder of his wife on 13th March 1969 and sentenced to death by that Court. He now applies to this Court for special leave to appeal against his conviction on three grounds—(i) that evidence of statements by his wife that she knew he wanted to kill her were inadmissible, (ii) that, if contrary to his submission, that evidence was admissible, it ought none the less to have been rejected by the trial judge in the exercise of his discretion to exclude evidence unduly prejudicial having regard to its evidentiary significance in the trial and (iii) that the jury ought to have been discharged because the Crown Prosecutor had in cross examination either transgressed a ruling of the judge or had asked questions designed or at least calculated to remind the jury of highly prejudicial press publicity current at the date of the applicant's committal for trial.

The applicant's wife died of gunshot wounds received by her whilst she was driving a tractor drawing a load of hay during the hours of day on a property in Victoria which the applicant was managing. The applicant had borrowed a shotgun from a neighbour, as he claimed in his evidence, for the purpose of shooting rabbits. On the day of his wife's death he had placed the rifle on the top of the load of hay. He claimed that he had set the safety catch on the gun by pushing it forward. In fact this action released the safety catch: but the applicant denied that he knew this. He claimed that he had not discharged the gun but that it had discharged accidentally, perhaps when a dog had jumped upon the load of hay. There were no eye witnesses present. The contest at the trial was as to whether the applicant, admittedly present at the time, had shot his wife in the back of the head or whether the gun placed on the load of hay had accidentally discharged at a time when it was pointing towards the back of her head, the jury having of course to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant had discharged the gun before they could convict.