Extended Joint Criminal Enterprise in Australia
| Author | Amy Laws |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022018317713564 |
| Published date | 01 August 2017 |
| Date | 01 August 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
Case Note
Extended Joint Criminal
Enterprise in Australia
Miller v The Queen; Smith v The Queen;
Presley v The Director of Public Prosecutions [2016] HCA 30
Keywords
Joint enterprise, Australia, alcohol, liability of secondary parties
The three appellants and Betts (along with others) were Aboriginals and had spent 12 December 2012
together consuming alcohol in Presley’s premises on Hayles Road in Australia. At approximately 23:00,
Betts and Presley left the premises to obtain marijuana, and on their way back to the premises, Betts
urinated against a residential property in Grant Street. The deceased, Clifford Hall, was a resident of
Grant Street and criticised their behaviour, along with the support of another neighbour, Wayne King.
There was an exchange of words between the four men, in which racial slurs were made by the deceased,
and the facts at this point become unclear: Betts or Presley was pushed by either Hall or King, and Betts
was punched in the face.
Upon returning to Presley’s premises, Betts informed the remaining two parties of the altercation, and
Presley tookhold of a baseball bat, suggestingthat they should all go back to the sceneof the incident. The
fourmen left the premises,Presley armed with a baseballbat and Betts witha knife. A key issue at theoriginal
trial was whether theprosecution had established that the appellants knewthat Betts was carrying a knife.
The appellants,Betts and potentially others, madetheir way back to Grant Street, where someneighbours,
includingHall and King, had gathered.One of the Aboriginalmen, who the prosecution allegedto be Smith,
was carryinga shovel. Wayne King was struck from behind.He testified that he turned and saw Presleyand
Betts, each of whomstruck him with an object. Witnessesalso saw King being kicked and hit by twomen
while he was lyingon the floor. One of these men, Betts,was identified as having a tattooof a crucifixon his
face.Clifford Hall was struck witha shovel, causing him to fallto the ground, where a witness sawhim being
kickedin the jaw, as well as seeinga hand coming at him and hittinghim in the back. Theprosecution alleged
this to be the fatal knife attack delivered by Betts. As the deceased lay on the ground, he was subject to
repeated blows from several Aboriginal men, one of whom was armed with a shovel, and the deceased
sustained a scalping wound, consistent with the use ofsuch an object.
The appellants subsequently returned to the premises on Hayles Road. Gary Willis, who had been
drinking with the appellants and Betts earlier that day, recalled someone saying that a fight had broken
out and recalled Betts stating that he thought he had stabbed someone. Presley was seen by a police
officer at the Hayles Road premises at approximately 23:30, pacing in an agitated manner. He was
subsequently arrested at 00:25 on the 13th December. Betts and Miller were arrested at different
premises at 01:52, and Smith was arrested after being found asleep in a car at 05:15.
While all the appellants declined to give evidence at the original trial, during his police interview,
Betts confessed to stabbing the deceased but claimed to have acted in self-defence. Betts located the
knife for the police and a shovel was also seized, both of which contained DNA belonging to Clifford
Hall. Presley declined to be interviewed initially by the police, however was later interviewed at his
The Journal of Criminal Law
2017, Vol. 81(4) 267–270
ªThe Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022018317713564
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
To continue reading
Request your trial