Williams v The Queen

Last updated

Williams v The Queen
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameWilliams v The Queen
Decided26 August 1987
Citation(s) [1986] HCA 88
Case history
Prior action(s)Hobart, 1986, March 5, 6; Adelaide, 1987, August 26. 26:8:1987 APPEAL from the Supreme Court of Tasmania
Case opinions
Arrest – Arrested person to be taken before a justice as soon as practicable – Delay – Desire of arresting officer to question arrested person.
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingGibbs CJ, Mason, Wilson, Brennan, and Dawson JJ

Williams v The Queen was a decision handed down by the High Court of Australia on 26 August 1987, concerning the common law right to personal liberty.

The applicant, Williams, was indicted before the Supreme Court of Tasmania on 29 charges—15 of burglary and 14 of stealing. At the commencement of the trial, counsel for Williams objected to the admission in evidence of a number of records of interview containing confessions allegedly made to the police by Williams. He argued that Williams had been detained unlawfully, because he ought to have been brought before a judge and formally charged as soon as reasonably practicable after his arrest. Instead, he was detained in police custody for 28 hours, and questioned about his role in a variety of burglaries across northern Tasmania. After a voir dire , the trial judge ruled that the records of interview which related to 26 of the charges should not be admitted in evidence, because they were obtained unlawfully through Williams' extended detention. As a result, the trial proceeded with no evidence being tendered by the prosecution in respect of those 26 charges, and the jury was directed to return a verdict of not guilty. Williams pleaded guilty to the remaining three charges.

The Attorney-General for Tasmania appealed to the Tasmanian Court of Criminal Appeal against the applicant's acquittal on the 26 charges. The Court upheld the appeal, and ordered that Williams must be re-tried on the 26 charges. Williams then appealed to the High Court.

The High Court unanimously (5:0) upheld Williams' appeal, finding that, in the absence of a clear statutory power, the police could not detain Williams for longer than it took to take him before a judge, and could not detain him solely for the purpose of questioning him. The purpose of detention in police custody was purely to take an accused before a judge, once the police were reasonably certain a crime had been committed.

Chief Justice Gibbs said:

The critical question is whether the arrested person was detained longer than was reasonably necessary to enable him to be brought before a justice. If he is detained for the purpose of enabling him to be brought before a justice, the fact that he is questioned, whether about the offence for which he was arrested, or about other offences, will not necessarily mean that there has been a failure to bring him before a justice as quickly as was reasonably practicable. On the other hand, if he is detained, not for that purpose, but solely for the purpose of questioning him, the detention will be unlawful. The line may be a fine one, as it often is when a discretion has to be exercised in sensitive matters. [1]

Justices Mason and Brennan said:

The right to personal liberty is, as Fullagar J described it, "the most elementary and important of all common law rights" (Trobridge v Hardy (1955) 94 CLR 147, at p. 152). Personal liberty was held by Blackstone to be an absolute right vested in the individual by the immutable laws of nature and had never been abridged by the laws of England "without sufficient cause" (Commentaries on the Laws of England (Oxford), Bk.1, pp. 120–121, 130–131)... The right to personal liberty cannot be impaired or taken away without lawful authority and then only to the extent and for the time which the law prescribes. [2]

Justices Wilson and Dawson said:

A person is not to be imprisoned otherwise than upon the authority of a justice or a court except to the extent reasonably necessary to bring him before the justice to be dealt with according to law. That, as we conceive it, it one of the foundations of the common law. [3]

As a result, the decision of the Tasmanian Court of Criminal Appeal was set aside, and the verdict of acquittal on the 26 charges was restored.

There is an onus on a person under Section 34A(1) of the Justices Act 1959 Tasmania, to be brought before a justice as soon as practical once taken into custody for an offence. In the ordinary case of an arrest on suspicion, the arresting officer must have satisfied himself at the time of the arrest that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting the guilt of the person arrested [4] although the grounds of suspicion need not consist of admissible evidence. [5] If the arresting officer believes the information in his possession to be true, if the information reasonably points to the guilt of the arrested person and if the arresting officer thus believes that the arrested person is so likely to be guilty of the offence for which he has been arrested that on general grounds of justice a charge is warranted, he has reasonable and probable cause for commencing a prosecution.

Related Research Articles

Arraignment Formal reading of the offence toward a criminal defendant

Arraignment is a formal reading of a criminal charging document in the presence of the defendant, to inform them of the charges against them. In response to arraignment, the accused is expected to enter a plea. Acceptable pleas vary among jurisdictions, but they generally include "guilty", "not guilty", and the peremptory pleas, or pleas in bar, setting out reasons why a trial cannot proceed. Pleas of nolo contendere and the Alford plea are allowed in some circumstances.

Habeas corpus is a recourse in law through which a person can report an unlawful detention or imprisonment to a court and request that the court order the custodian of the person, usually a prison official, to bring the prisoner to court, to determine whether the detention is lawful.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arrest</span> Law enforcement term

An arrest is the act of apprehending and taking a person into custody, usually because the person has been suspected of or observed committing a crime. After being taken into custody, the person can be questioned further and/or charged. An arrest is a procedure in a criminal justice system, sometimes it is also done after a court warrant for the arrest.

Bail is a set of pre-trial restrictions that are imposed on a suspect to ensure that they will not hamper the judicial process. Bail is the conditional release of a defendant with the promise to appear in court when required. In some countries, especially the United States, bail usually implies a bail bond, a deposit of money or some form of property to the court by the suspect in return for the release from pre-trial detention. If the suspect does not return to court, the bail is forfeited and the suspect may possibly be brought up on charges of the crime of failure to appear. If the suspect returns to make all their required appearances, bail is returned after the trial is concluded.

A citizen's arrest is an arrest made by a private citizen – that is, a person who is not acting as a sworn law-enforcement official. In common law jurisdictions, the practice dates back to medieval England and the English common law, in which sheriffs encouraged ordinary citizens to help apprehend law breakers.

False arrest is a common law tort, where a plaintiff alleges they were held in custody without probable cause, or without an order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. Although it is possible to sue law enforcement officials for false arrest, the usual defendants in such cases are private security firms.

<i>R v Mann</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Mann is a 2004 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.

<i>R v Swain</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933 is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on certain rights of the mentally ill in their criminal defence. The case concerned a constitutional challenge of the common law rule permitting the Crown to adduce evidence of an accused's insanity and section 542(2) of the Criminal Code, which allowed for the indeterminate detention of an accused who is found not guilty by reason of "insanity". The Court held that both the common law rule and the Code provision were unconstitutional. As a result, the Court created a new common law rule that was constitutional, and Parliament created new laws of what to do with individuals who were found not criminally responsible by reason of a mental disorder. The parties to the case were the appellant, Swain, the respondent, the Crown, and the following interveners: the Attorney General of Canada, the Lieutenant Governor's Board of Review of Ontario, the Canadian Disability Rights Council, the Canadian Mental Health Association, and the Canadian Association for Community Living.

<i>Al-Kateb v Godwin</i> 2004 decision of the High Court of Australia

Al-Kateb v Godwin, was a decision of the High Court of Australia, which ruled on 6 August 2004 that the indefinite detention of a stateless person was lawful. The case concerned Ahmed Al-Kateb, a Palestinian man born in Kuwait, who moved to Australia in 2000 and applied for a temporary protection visa. The Commonwealth Minister for Immigration's decision to refuse the application was upheld by the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Federal Court. In 2002, Al-Kateb declared that he wished to return to Kuwait or Gaza. However, since no country would accept Al-Kateb, he was declared stateless and detained under the policy of mandatory detention.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act</span> Statute of the Parliament of Singapore

The Criminal Law Act is a Singapore statute that, among other things, allows the executive branch of the Government of Singapore to order that suspected criminals be detained without trial. It was introduced in 1955 during the colonial era and intended to be a temporary measure, but has since been renewed continuously; the Government has declined to make it permanent, claiming it "believe[s] that the Act should be explicitly extended by Parliament every five years". The validity of the Act was most recently extended in February 2018, and it will remain in force till October 2024.

The Constitution of Nigeria is the supreme law of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Remand (detention)</span> Detention after arrest and charge until a trial

Remand, also known as pre-trial detention, preventive detention, or provisional detention, is the process of detaining a person until their trial after they have been arrested and charged with an offence. A person who is on remand is held in a prison or detention centre or held under house arrest. Varying terminology is used, but "remand" is generally used in common law jurisdictions and "preventive detention" elsewhere. However, in the United States, "remand" is rare except in official documents and "kept in custody until trial" is used in the media and even by judges and lawyers in addressing the public. Detention before charge is referred to as custody and continued detention after conviction is referred to as imprisonment.

Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. Liberty and security of the person are taken as a "compound" concept - security of the person has not been subject to separate interpretation by the Court.

Article 5 – Right to liberty and security

1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he or she understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.

3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1.c of this article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.

4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.

5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

<i>R v Grant</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Grant, 2009 SCC 32 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 9, section 10 and section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). The Court created a number of factors to consider when determining whether a person had been detained for the purpose of sections 9 and 10 of the Charter. The Court also created a new test for determining whether evidence obtained by a Charter breach should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, replacing the Collins test.

Bail in Canada refers to the release of a person charged with a criminal offence prior to being tried in court or sentenced. The Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause. That right is implemented by the Criminal Code, which provides several ways for a person to be released prior to a court appearance. A person may be released by a peace officer or by the courts. A release by the courts is officially known as a judicial interim release. There are also a number of ways to compel a person's appearance in court without the need for an arrest and release.

The powers of the police in England and Wales are defined largely by statute law, with the main sources of power being the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Police Act 1996. This article covers the powers of police officers of territorial police forces only, but a police officer in one of the UK's special police forces can utilise extended jurisdiction powers outside of their normal jurisdiction in certain defined situations as set out in statute. In law, police powers are given to constables. All police officers in England and Wales are 'constables' in law whatever their rank. Certain police powers are also available to a limited extent to police community support officers and other non warranted positions such as police civilian investigators or designated detention officers employed by some police forces even though they are not constables.

Following the common law system introduced into Hong Kong when it became a Crown colony, Hong Kong's criminal procedural law and the underlying principles are very similar to the one in the UK. Like other common law jurisdictions, Hong Kong follows the principle of presumption of innocence. This principle penetrates the whole system of Hong Kong's criminal procedure and criminal law. Viscount Sankey once described this principle as a 'golden thread'. Therefore, knowing this principle is vital for understanding the criminal procedures practised in Hong Kong.

County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case which involved the question of within what period of time must a suspect arrested without a warrant be brought into court to determine if there is probable cause for holding the suspect in custody. The majority held that suspects must generally be granted a probable cause determination within 48 hours of arrest. The dissent believed that probable cause hearings should generally be provided much sooner, as soon as the police complete the administrative steps incident to arrest.

Bail in the United Kingdom is the practice of releasing individuals from remand subject to certain conditions which are designed to enable criminal justice outcomes, primarily trials and police investigations, to be completed efficiently and effectively. The right to bail is guaranteed in a wide range of contexts but is not absolute. The legal systems of England and Wales, Northern Ireland and of Scotland each deal with bail in similar but distinct ways. Bail can be granted by the courts, the police and certain other criminal justice authorities including the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

References

  1. ↑ Gibbs CJ, at 285.
  2. ↑ Mason and Brennan JJ, at 292.
  3. ↑ Wilson and Dawson JJ, at 306.
  4. ↑ Dumbell v. Roberts (1944) 1 All ER 326, at p 329
  5. ↑ Hussien v. Chong Fook Kam (1970) AC 942, at pp 948–949
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.