Wendo v The Queen [1963] HCA 19

Wendo v The Queen [1963] HCA 19

The applications were refused because the trial judge was entitled to admit the applicants' statements. The evidence supported findings that the statements were voluntary, were not induced by threat or promise, and were not obtained by unfair or improper methods requiring discretionary exclusion. Alleged custody, irregularities and the circumstances of the inquest were relevant but did not themselves make the evidence inadmissible. The trial judge had applied a higher standard of proof than the law required, because preliminary facts governing admissibility need only provide prima facie reason for admission, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Applications for Leave to Appeal / High Court Applications for Leave to Appeal From Convictions for Wilful Murder and Recorded Sentences of Death
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['wilful Murder' 'common Purpose' 'confessional Statements' 'voluntariness' 'voir Dire' 'unlawfully or Irregularly Obtained Evidence' 'discretion to Exclude Evidence' "coroner's Inquest" 'standard of Proof for Admissibility of Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['wilful Murder' 'common Purpose' 'confessional Statements' 'voluntariness' 'voir Dire' 'unlawfully or Irregularly Obtained Evidence' 'discretion to Exclude Evidence' "coroner's Inquest" 'standard of Proof for Admissibility of Evidence']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Applications for Leave to Appeal / High Court Applications for Leave to Appeal From Convictions for Wilful Murder and Recorded Sentences of Death

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether statements made by the applicants at a Coroner's inquest were inadmissible because they were not shown to have been voluntary or were induced by threat or promise." 'Whether alleged unlawful arrest, custody, procedural irregularities, or the combination of coronial and police functions required exclusion of the statements.' "Whether voluntary statements obtained by unfair or improper methods should have been excluded in the trial judge's discretion." 'Whether the prosecution had to prove voluntariness of confessional statements beyond reasonable doubt on the voir dire.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applications were refused because the trial judge was entitled to admit the applicants' statements. The evidence supported findings that the statements were voluntary, were not induced by threat or promise, and were not obtained by unfair or improper methods requiring discretionary exclusion. Alleged custody, irregularities and the circumstances of the inquest were relevant but did not themselves make the evidence inadmissible. The trial judge had applied a higher standard of proof than the law required, because preliminary facts governing admissibility need only provide prima facie reason for admission, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Applications for leave to appeal dismissed.']