Williams v The Queen [1986] HCA 88

High Court of Australia Gibbs C.J. Mason, Wilson, Brennan and Dawson JJ. Williams v The Queen [1986] HCA 88

ORDER Application for special leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed. Order that the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of Tasmania be set aside and that the appeal to that Court be dismissed.

Cur. adv. vult.

The written judgments were delivered:—

Aug. 26 Gibbs C.J.

The applicant was indicted before the Supreme Court of Tasmania on twenty-nine counts — fifteen of burglary and fourteen of stealing. At the commencement of the trial counsel for the accused objected to the admission in evidence of a number of records of interview containing confessions allegedly made to the police by the applicant. After a voir dire the learned trial judge ruled that the records of interview which related to twenty-six of the counts should not be admitted in evidence. The Crown Prosecutor then offered no evidence on those counts and the jury by direction brought in a verdict of not guilty on each of those counts. The applicant pleaded guilty to the remaining three counts. Thereafter the Attorney-General for Tasmania applied for leave to appeal, under s. 401(2)(b) of the Criminal Code 1924 Tas., as amended, against the acquittal of the applicant on each of the twenty-six counts. The Court of Criminal Appeal granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal and ordered that the applicant be retried on the twenty-six counts. The applicant now applies to this Court for special leave to appeal against that decision.

In the early hours of the morning of 17 May 1984 police at Scottsdale, a town in the north of Tasmania, received information that the applicant had been seen in hotel premises at Scottsdale apparently in the act of committing a burglary. The applicant fled from the scene in a motor vehicle and was eventually arrested after his car had run off the road and he had attempted to escape into the bush. The arrest was made at about 6 a.m. by Constable Gibson who told the applicant that he was satisfied that he was responsible for several burglaries in the northern area of Tasmania. The applicant was then taken to the police station at Scottsdale and was kept there until he could be interviewed by officers of the C.I.B. who had to come from Launceston. Those officers, Detective Sergeant Otley and Detective Canning, arrived at about 8.45 a.m. Sergeant Otley told the applicant that he wanted to speak to him about matters that had occurred at Scottsdale that morning or on the evening before. In the circumstances the learned trial judge concluded that the applicant was taken into police custody only for those crimes which he had committed at Scottsdale — namely, the crimes the subject of counts 27 to 29 in the indictment. The applicant was later taken in a police vehicle to Launceston, where he arrived at about 11 a.m. After he had been shown a number of police reports, he indicated that he had been involved in a number of offences during the previous month in other parts of Tasmania — these were the crimes that were the subject of counts 1 to 26. At about 1.10 p.m. the detectives commenced to conduct a series of interviews with the applicant and to make records of the interviews, in the course of which the applicant confessed to the various crimes. The interviews, which related to different counts, were conducted in no particular order. The first record related to counts 1 and 2 and was completed by about 1.45 p.m.; the second related to counts 27 to 29 (the Scottsdale matters) and was completed by about 3 p.m. None of the records was signed. The last of the interviews concluded at about 8.30 p.m. At about 9.03 p.m. the applicant was taken before a police inspector to whom he confirmed the correctness of each of the records of interview. He was taken before a magistrate at 10 a.m. on the following day. Due to some problem with the court administration he was not dealt with until 2.15 p.m. on that day, but that is not material. The learned trial judge took the view that an accused cannot be held in custody for the purpose of enabling the police to conduct inquiries into matters other than those in respect of which he has been arrested. He concluded that in the circumstances the applicant was unlawfully detained at Launceston after such time as an investigation into the crimes committed at Scottsdale could reasonably have been completed and the documents necessary to have him brought before the court on charges relating to those crimes could have been prepared. He said that that time was reached at 2.15 p.m. on 17 May and that the applicant should then have been brought before a magistrate. He had no doubt that a magistrate would have been available at Launceston at that time.