Cheney v the Queen S286/2000

Case [2001] HCATrans 649

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S286 of 2000

B e t w e e n -

ROGER DAVID CHENEY

Applicant

and

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

GLEESON CJ
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 14 DECEMBER 2001, AT 12.18 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GLEESON CJ:   In this matter, the applicant has indicated that he does not desire to make oral submissions.

Having considered the written submissions of the applicant, it appears to the Court that no reason has been shown to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal, and the application is dismissed.

We will adjourn for a short time to reconstitute.

AT 12.19 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

Details
AGLC
Cheney v the Queen S286/2000 [2001] HCATrans 649
Case
[2001] HCATrans 649
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cheney appealed to the High Court of Australia against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained from the appellant, specifically a confession made to police.

The High Court was required to determine whether the confession was improperly or unfairly obtained, and if so, whether it should have been excluded from evidence under the common law. This involved considering the principles governing the admissibility of confessions, particularly in circumstances where an accused person has been subjected to questioning by police.

The Court affirmed the principle that a confession is inadmissible if it was obtained by means of an unfair or improper question or by the unfair admission of evidence. Gleeson CJ and Callinan J noted that the common law has a discretion to exclude evidence if its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value, or if it was obtained unfairly. In this instance, the Court found that the confession was not unfairly obtained, and therefore, it was properly admitted into evidence. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.