ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram   :VIOL DCJ
File Number            :  IND 21 of 2002

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Limitation provision contained in s 189(6) Criminal Code - Interpretation of - Whether time limit applicable notwithstanding repeal - Crossexamination of defence witnesses - Calling of rebuttal evidence - Whether crossexamination collateral - Whether exception to the collateral rule established - Question of bias - Revelation that witness had told police accused person had interfered with her - Prejudicial effect - Whether sufficiently corrected by trial Judge's directions - Whether Crown case involved impression that accused had committed acts other than those charged - Prejudicial outbursts by accused in the course of his crossexamination - Whether trial miscarried - Whether jury should have been discharged - Effect of trial Judge's directions on the issue

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 189(1), s 189(2), s 189(6) as at 1985

Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 21

Result:

Application for extension of time to appeal refused

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr B S Hanbury
Respondent: Mr R E Cock QC

Solicitors:

Applicant: Beau Hanbury
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

AC v The Queen [2003] WASCA 280
Eastman v R (1997) 158 ALR 107
Gavin v The Queen (1992) 6 WAR 195
Narkle v The Queen (2001) 23 WAR 468
Natta v Canham (1991) 32 FCR 282
Rodway v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 515

Case(s) also cited:

Adlem v The Queen (1999) 20 WAR 419
Eatwell v The Queen [1963] WAR 121
Gipp v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 106
R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677
R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321
R v Jensen (1991) 52 A Crim R 279
R v Kenward [2000] QCA 482
R v King [2001] QCA 525
R v Melville (2003) 27 WAR 224
Ready v Brown (1968) 118 CLR 165
Suresh v The Queen (1998) 153 ALR 145

MALCOLM CJ: This was an application for an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction. The relevant facts and circumstances are set out in the reasons for judgment of other members of the Court. There were originally three grounds of appeal. Ground 1 was abandoned.

Ground 2: Whether prosecution statute-barred

Ground 2 contended that because the complainant was aged more than 18 years at the time complaints were made by her against the applicant in respect of indecent dealing, the prosecution for such offences was statute‑barred having regard to the provisions of s 189(6) of the Criminal Code, as it was in 1985 when the relevant offences were alleged to have been committed. The provisions as they…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading AC v The Queen

Details

AGLC: AC v The Queen [2004] WASCA 75
Case: [2004] WASCA 75
Decision Date: 16 APRIL 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of AC v The Queen was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant, AC, was convicted of sexual offences and appealed against the conviction on various grounds, including the alleged misapplication of the limitation provision in section 189(6) of the Criminal Code, the handling of cross-examination of defence witnesses, and issues of bias and prejudicial outbursts during the trial. The Crown, represented by The Queen, sought to uphold the conviction.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court included whether the time limit specified in section 189(6) of the Criminal Code applied despite the repeal of the provision, whether the cross-examination of defence witnesses was collateral, if an exception to the collateral rule could be established, and whether the trial judge's directions adequately addressed concerns of bias and prejudicial effects. Additionally, the court considered whether the accused's outbursts during cross-examination warranted a mistrial and the discharge of the jury.

The court found that the time limit in section 189(6) of the Criminal Code was not applicable due to its repeal. It also ruled that the cross-examination of defence witnesses was not collateral and that no exception to the collateral rule was warranted. Regarding bias, the court held that the trial judge's directions were sufficient to mitigate any prejudicial effects arising from the witness's revelation about the accused interfering with her. The court determined that the accused's outbursts did not necessitate a mistrial, as the trial judge's directions were effective in mitigating any prejudice caused.

The High Court ultimately upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge's directions sufficiently addressed the issues raised and that there was no basis for discharging the jury or declaring a mistrial. The appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction was affirmed.

Orders