ALLEGRETTA -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 17
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2003] WASCA 17 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:127/2002 | 5 DECEMBER 2002 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ MCKECHNIE J ROBERTS-SMITH J | 25/02/03 | |
| 38 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal granted, Appeal allowed | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | DAMIANO GIUSEPPE ALLEGRETTA THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Appeal Criminal law Unlawful sexual relationship with girl under 16 Crown relying on five separate sexual acts Jury to be unanimously agreed on three such acts on different days Adequacy of trial Judge's directions Criminal law One count of unlawful sexual relationship with girl under 16 One count of unlawful sexual penetration without consent Evidence of uncharged unlawful sexual acts Whether propensity warning required Whether separate consideration warning required Longman direction Criminal law Sexual offences Evidence of recent complaint Directions on use of |
Legislation: | Criminal Code (WA), s 321A |
Case References: | Cook [2000] 110 A Crim R 117 Crampton v The Queen (2000) 206 CLR 161 Doggett v The Queen (2001) 182 ALR 1 Emery (1999) 110 A Crim R 221 Gipp v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 106 Glennon v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 1 Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439 KBT v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 417 Kilby v The Queen (1973) 129 CLR 650 Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 Mraz v The Queen (1955) 93 CLR 493 Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297 R v BWT (2002) 54 NSWLR 241 R v Johnston (1998) 45 NSWLR 362 Sampson v The Queen [2002] WASCA 222 Schlaefer v The Queen (1984) 37 SASR 207 Suresh v The Queen (1998) 153 ALR 145 Ugle v The Queen (1989) 67 CLR 647 Wilde v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 365 BRS v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275 Director of Public Prosecutions v Boardman [1975] AC 421 Gill v The Queen [1999] WASCA 68 Kailis v The Queen (1999) 21 WAR 100 KRM v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 221 R v Arundell [1999] 2 VR 228 R v Beserick (1993) 30 NSWLR 510 R v Osborne [1905] 1 KB 551 R v S [1999] 2 Qd R 89 Sutton v The Queen (1984) 152 CLR 528 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : ALLEGRETTA -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 17 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- MCKECHNIE J
ROBERTS-SMITH J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Appeal - Criminal law - Unlawful sexual relationship with girl under 16 - Crown relying on five separate sexual acts - Jury to be unanimously agreed on three such acts on different days - Adequacy of trial Judge's directions
Criminal law - One count of unlawful sexual relationship with girl under…
Continue reading Allegretta v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Allegretta v The Queen [2003] WASCA 17
- Case
- [2003] WASCA 17
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal before the court involved the appellant, Allegretta, who was convicted on two counts: one of unlawful sexual relationship with a girl under 16 years old, and another of unlawful sexual penetration without consent. The prosecution relied on five separate sexual acts to substantiate these charges. The jury was directed to reach a unanimous decision on three of these acts, each occurring on different days. The appellant challenged the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury, particularly concerning the requirement for unanimity on the specific acts constituting the charges. The court was required to assess whether the trial judge provided sufficient guidance to ensure the jury's verdict was based on a unanimous agreement regarding the specific acts.
The court found that the trial judge's directions did not adequately address the necessity for the jury to be unanimous on the specific acts that constituted the charges. The judge's directions did not clarify that the jury had to be unanimous on which three acts they believed to have occurred on different days, which was essential for a valid conviction. This inadequacy in the trial judge's directions led to an unfair trial, as the jury's verdict might not have been based on a unanimous agreement on the specific acts. Additionally, the court considered whether the evidence of uncharged unlawful sexual acts required a propensity warning and whether a separate consideration warning was necessary. The court concluded that the trial judge's directions on these points were insufficient, contributing to the overall unfairness of the trial.
The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's inadequate directions to the jury regarding the requirement for unanimity on the specific acts constituted a significant error. This error compromised the fairness of the trial, necessitating the quashing of the convictions. The court's decision underscored the importance of clear and precise directions to the jury in criminal trials, particularly in cases involving multiple acts that must be unanimously agreed upon. The final orders of the court included granting leave to appeal, allowing the appeal, and quashing the convictions. The case was remitted for a retrial, ensuring that the jury would receive appropriate directions in line with legal principles.
The court found that the trial judge's directions did not adequately address the necessity for the jury to be unanimous on the specific acts that constituted the charges. The judge's directions did not clarify that the jury had to be unanimous on which three acts they believed to have occurred on different days, which was essential for a valid conviction. This inadequacy in the trial judge's directions led to an unfair trial, as the jury's verdict might not have been based on a unanimous agreement on the specific acts. Additionally, the court considered whether the evidence of uncharged unlawful sexual acts required a propensity warning and whether a separate consideration warning was necessary. The court concluded that the trial judge's directions on these points were insufficient, contributing to the overall unfairness of the trial.
The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's inadequate directions to the jury regarding the requirement for unanimity on the specific acts constituted a significant error. This error compromised the fairness of the trial, necessitating the quashing of the convictions. The court's decision underscored the importance of clear and precise directions to the jury in criminal trials, particularly in cases involving multiple acts that must be unanimously agreed upon. The final orders of the court included granting leave to appeal, allowing the appeal, and quashing the convictions. The case was remitted for a retrial, ensuring that the jury would receive appropriate directions in line with legal principles.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal granted, Appeal allowed
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.