AJAYI -v- THE QUEEN [2012] WASCA 126
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2012] WASCA 126 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACR:132/2011 | 1 MAY 2012 | |
| Coram: | McLURE P BUSS JA MAZZA JA | 26/06/12 | |
| 18 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal refused Appeal dismissed | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | BOLADE AJAYI THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Appeal against conviction Importing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug The defence of duress under s 10.2 of the Criminal Code (Cth) The defence of sudden or extraordinary emergency under s 10.3 of the Code The trial judge left the defence of duress to the jury Whether the trial judge erred by not leaving the defence of sudden or extraordinary emergency to the jury Whether the trial judge erred by not giving a 'good character' direction to the jury |
Legislation: | Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 15AB(1) Criminal Code (Cth), s 8.4(2), s 10.2, s 10.3, s 13.1, s 13.2, s 13.3, s 307.2(1) |
Case References: | Kia v The Queen [2011] WASCA 104 Melbourne v The Queen [1999] HCA 32; (1999) 198 CLR 1 Morris v The Queen [2006] WASCA 142; (2006) 201 FLR 325 Nguyen v The Queen [2005] WASCA 22 R v Brown (1986) 43 SASR 33 R v Oblach [2005] NSWCCA 440; (2005) 65 NSWLR 75 R v Rogers (1996) 86 A Crim R 542 Simic v The Queen [1980] HCA 25; (1980) 144 CLR 319 Trudgian v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 271; (2006) 33 WAR 163 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : AJAYI -v- THE QUEEN [2012] WASCA 126 CORAM : McLURE P
- BUSS JA
MAZZA JA
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : EATON DCJ
File No : IND 396 of 2011
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Importing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug - The defence of duress under s 10.2 of the Criminal Code (Cth) - The defence of sudden or extraordinary emergency under s 10.3 of the Code - The trial judge left the defence of duress to the jury - Whether the trial judge erred by not leaving the defence of sudden or extraordinary
(Page 2)
emergency to the jury - Whether the trial judge erred by not giving a 'good character' direction to the jury
Legislation:
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 15AB(1)
Criminal Code (Cth), s 8.4(2), s 10.2, s 10.3, s 13.1, s 13.2, s 13.3, s 307.2(1)
Result:
Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed
Category: A
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr A E Monisse
Respondent : No appearance
Solicitors:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
Case(s)…
Continue reading Ajayi v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Ajayi v The Queen [2012] WASCA 126
- Case
- [2012] WASCA 126
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In this matter, the appellant, Mr Ajayi, appealed against his conviction for importing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The appellant challenged the correctness of the trial judge's failure to leave the defence of sudden or extraordinary emergency to the jury and the failure to give a 'good character' direction to the jury. The respondent, the Crown, opposed the appeal.
The central legal issues were whether the trial judge erred by not leaving the defence of sudden or extraordinary emergency to the jury and whether the trial judge was required to give a 'good character' direction to the jury. The appellant argued that the trial judge should have left the defence of sudden or extraordinary emergency to the jury because the facts supported this defence. The appellant also submitted that the trial judge was required to give a 'good character' direction to the jury.
The High Court held that the trial judge did not err in not leaving the defence of sudden or extraordinary emergency to the jury. The court found that the appellant had not provided any evidence to support this defence and that the trial judge was not required to give a 'good character' direction to the jury. The court held that the appeal should be dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
No further orders were made by the court.
The central legal issues were whether the trial judge erred by not leaving the defence of sudden or extraordinary emergency to the jury and whether the trial judge was required to give a 'good character' direction to the jury. The appellant argued that the trial judge should have left the defence of sudden or extraordinary emergency to the jury because the facts supported this defence. The appellant also submitted that the trial judge was required to give a 'good character' direction to the jury.
The High Court held that the trial judge did not err in not leaving the defence of sudden or extraordinary emergency to the jury. The court found that the appellant had not provided any evidence to support this defence and that the trial judge was not required to give a 'good character' direction to the jury. The court held that the appeal should be dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
No further orders were made by the court.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.