Ardrey v The State of Western Australia

The appeal in Ardrey v The State of Western Australia involved the appellant who was convicted by a jury in the Supreme Court of Western Australia of 18 counts of fraud. The appellant had been indicted on 19 counts of fraud, but was acquitted on one count. The state's case was presented on the basis of six alternative particulars of deceit or fraudulent means. The appellant's conviction was challenged on the grounds that the trial judge failed to direct the jury on the requirement of unanimity as to the particular deceit or fraudulent means employed by the appellant in each offence. The appellant further argued that the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence adduced at trial and additional evidence presented on appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge's failure to adequately direct the jury on the requirement of unanimity as to the particular deceit or fraudulent means employed by the appellant in each offence rendered the verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court also considered whether the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable or could not be supported, taking into account both the evidence presented at trial and the additional evidence presented on appeal. The court needed to determine if the appellant's conviction should be quashed and a new trial ordered, or if the appeal should be dismissed.

The court held that the trial judge failed to give the required directions to the jury on the necessity of unanimous agreement as to the particular deceit or fraudulent means employed by the appellant in each offence. This failure meant that the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court further found that the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable or could not be supported, having regard to the evidence presented at trial and the additional evidence on appeal. The court concluded that the appellant's conviction should be quashed and a new trial ordered. The appeal was therefore allowed, and the convictions were quashed.

The final orders of the court were that the appellant's convictions on 18 counts of fraud be quashed, and that a new trial be ordered. The appellant's acquittal on the 19th count of fraud was upheld. The court's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that juries are properly directed on the requirement of unanimity in criminal trials, and that verdicts are supported by the evidence presented.