R v Lee [1950] HCA 25

R v Lee [1950] HCA 25

Section 141 of the Evidence Act 1928 (Vic) applies only to confessions and only where the sole ground for involuntariness is threat or promise; outside that field, the common law discretion to exclude voluntary statements for unfairness continues. The trial judge's discretion is properly exercised by considering propriety and the likelihood of an untrue admission, but the onus to invoke discretion rests on the accused once voluntariness is shown. The decisions of the majority of the Full Court misapplied the law by casting the onus on the Crown and misconstruing what constitutes unfairness, and the trial judge did not err in admitting the statements.

Parties
Appellant: The King; Respondent: Jean Lee; Respondent: Robert David Clayton; Respondent: Norman Andrews
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 1950
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal From Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria reversed.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Confessions, Judicial Discretion to Admit/exclude Evidence, Onus of Proof for Voluntariness, Impact of Improper Police Procedure, Victorian Evidence Act S. 141
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility of Confessions Judicial Discretion to Admit/exclude Evidence Onus of Proof for Voluntariness Impact of Improper Police Procedure Victorian Evidence Act S. 141

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The King

Appellant

Jean Lee

Respondent

Robert David Clayton

Respondent

Norman Andrews

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal From Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does s. 141 of the Evidence Act 1928 (Vic) eliminate or limit the judicial discretion to reject voluntary confessional statements?
  2. 2 What is the correct procedure for admitting statements made by accused persons to police, particularly regarding involuntariness and alleged impropriety in police conduct?
  3. 3 Where some impropriety in police conduct is alleged, what is the relevant onus of proof and relevance of potential unfairness or likelihood of untrue admissions?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 141 of the Evidence Act 1928 (Vic) applies only to confessions and only where the sole ground for involuntariness is threat or promise; outside that field, the common law discretion to exclude voluntary statements for unfairness continues. The trial judge's discretion is properly exercised by considering propriety and the likelihood of an untrue admission, but the onus to invoke discretion rests on the accused once voluntariness is shown. The decisions of the majority of the Full Court misapplied the law by casting the onus on the Crown and misconstruing what constitutes unfairness, and the trial judge did not err in admitting the statements.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria reversed.

Orders

  • Special leave to appeal granted in each case.
  • Order of Full Court of Supreme Court discharged.