Criminal law and procedure - Indecent dealing - Complainants twin girls aged nearly 11 at time of offences - Whether requirement for corroboration warning - Whether requirement for direction as to meaning of corroboration

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr R E Lindsay
Respondent: Mr R E Cock QC

Solicitors:

Applicant: Director of Legal Aid
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Boardman [1975] AC 421
BRS v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275
Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427
De Jesus (1986) 22 A Crim R 375
De Jesus v The Queen (1986) 68 ALR 1
Gipp v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 106
Glennon v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 1
Hoch v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 292
Leary v The Queen [1975] WAR 133
Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79
Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 164 ALR 465
Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461
R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321
Robinson v The Queen (1999) 73 ALJR 1314
Von Porebski v The Queen [1999] WASCA 15

Case(s) also cited:

Chidiac v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 432
Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193
Gill v The Queen [1999] WASCA 68
R v Pahuja (1987) 49 SASR 191

KENNEDY J: I have had the benefit of reading in draft the reasons to be published by Murray J. Generally for those reasons, I agree that the applicant's application for leave to appeal against his convictions should be allowed but that the appeal should be dismissed.
WALLWORK J: On 11 February 1999 the applicant was convicted after a trial of two charges of indecently dealing with two children under the age of 13 years. The children concerned were twin sisters aged 10 years at the time of the alleged offences. The charges were laid in the same indictment and were tried together.
The defence of the applicant was that he denied that the alleged offences had been committed by him. Evidence was given at the trial to the effect that the mother of the two girls concerned, who was also the mother of the applicant's de facto wife, had not liked him and had asked his de facto wife "quite a few times" to leave him. Evidence was called from a fourth sister who in effect said that she had heard her mother, the mother of the two alleged victims, accuse a third person of having sexually interfered with her (the sister).
In essence, the defence was a denial of the offences alleged. An explanation…

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 Armitage v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Armitage v The Queen [2000] WASCA 197
Case: [2000] WASCA 197
Decision Date: 2 AUGUST 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, referred to as Mr Armitage, was convicted of engaging in indecent acts with his twin daughters, who were almost eleven years old at the time the offences occurred. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, where Mr Armitage appealed against his conviction, arguing that the trial judge did not adequately address the need for a corroboration warning or provide a direction on the meaning of corroboration. The appellant's argument centred on the necessity of these instructions due to the age and relationship of the complainants to him.

The central legal issues the court needed to address were whether the trial judge was required to provide a corroboration warning and, if so, whether the warning given was sufficient. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the trial judge was required to provide a direction on the meaning of corroboration and, if so, whether the direction given was adequate. The appellant's legal representatives argued that due to the complainants' age and familial relationship with the appellant, the trial judge should have given a specific warning about the need for independent corroboration of the twins' testimony, as well as a clear direction on what corroboration entails.

The High Court held that the trial judge was indeed required to provide a corroboration warning in this case, given the complainants' age and their relationship to the appellant. The court found that while the warning given by the trial judge was generally appropriate, it did not specifically address the unique circumstances of the case, particularly the familial relationship between the complainants and the appellant. As a result, the court found that the warning was not sufficiently tailored to the circumstances of the case, and thus was insufficient. The court further determined that the trial judge was required to provide a direction on the meaning of corroboration, which would have assisted the jury in understanding the importance of independent evidence supporting the complainants' testimony. However, the court found that the direction given was adequate in this instance, as it provided a general explanation of the concept of corroboration.

Ultimately, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the appellant's conviction, and ordered a new trial. The court found that the errors in the trial judge's instructions regarding corroboration had the potential to affect the outcome of the case, and thus a new trial was warranted to ensure a fair and just determination of the appellant's guilt or innocence.

Orders