BARNES & ANOR -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 86

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 86
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:219/1996	Heard:	6 SEPTEMBER 2000
Coram:	WALLWORK J PARKER J WHEELER J	Delivered:	22/03/01
No of pages:	28	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal granted Appeals dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	JENNIFER MAY BARNES JOHN TERENCE CHAMBERLAIN THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeals against conviction Secret commission, false pretences, stealing as a servant Failure to order separate trial of offences Honest claim of right Whether verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory No new principles
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Barnes & Anor v The Queen, unreported; District Ct of WA (Barlow DCJ); Library No 5141; 12 November 1996 Beck & Smith v R [1984] WAR 127 De Jesus v R (1986) 68 ALR 1 Ludlow v R [1971] AC 29 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 Phillips v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960639; 8 October 1996 R v Kray [1969] 3 WLR 831 R v Pollard [1962] QWN 27 Rex v Sims [1946] KB 531 Seiler v R [1978] WAR 27 Sutton v R (1984) 152 CLR 528 K v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980276; 22 May 1998

JURISDICTION :

SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT :

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION :

BARNES & ANOR -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 86

CORAM :

WALLWORK J

PARKER J

WHEELER J

HEARD :

6 SEPTEMBER 2000

DELIVERED :

22 MARCH 2001

FILE NO/S :

CCA 219 of 1996

CCA 221 of 1996

BETWEEN :

JENNIFER MAY BARNES

JOHN TERENCE CHAMBERLAIN

Applicants

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeals against conviction - Secret commission, false pretences, stealing as a servant - Failure to order separate trial of offences - Honest claim of right - Whether verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory - No new principles

Legislation:

Nil

(Page 2)

Result:

Leave to appeal granted

Appeals dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicants : In person

Respondent : Mr B Fiannaca

Solicitors:

Applicants : In person

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Barnes & Anor v The Queen, unreported; District Ct of WA (Barlow DCJ); Library No 5141; 12 November 1996

Beck & Smith v R [1984] WAR 127

De Jesus v R (1986) 68 ALR 1

Ludlow v R [1971] AC 29

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487

Phillips v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960639; 8 October 1996

R v Kray [1969] 3 WLR 831

R v Pollard [1962] QWN 27

Rex v Sims [1946] KB 531

Seiler v R [1978] WAR 27

Sutton v R (1984) 152 CLR 528

Case(s) also cited:

K v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980276; 22 May 1998

(Page 3)

WALLWORK J

: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Parker J and to the orders proposed by his Honour. There is…

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 Barnes v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Barnes v The Queen [2001] WASCA 86
Case: [2001] WASCA 86
Decision Date: 22 MARCH 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Barnes v The Queen involved the appellant, Barnes, who was convicted on two counts: one of obtaining a secret commission and another of obtaining money by false pretences while acting as a servant. The decision was made in the High Court of Australia. Barnes sought to appeal against his convictions, arguing that the trial judge erred in not ordering a separate trial for each offence and that the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory. Additionally, Barnes claimed an honest belief in his right to the property in question.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the trial judge's failure to order separate trials for the distinct offences amounted to a miscarriage of justice, and whether the verdicts, considering Barnes' claim of an honest belief in his right to the property, were indeed unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court also needed to determine if any new legal principles were established in the appeal.

The High Court found that there was no miscarriage of justice in the trial judge's decision not to order separate trials for the offences, as the evidence presented did not warrant such a separation. Furthermore, the court held that the verdicts were safe and satisfactory, and that Barnes' claim of an honest belief in his right to the property did not absolve him from criminal liability. The court concluded that no new legal principles were established in the appeal. Consequently, the leave to appeal was granted, but the appeals were ultimately dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted

Appeals 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.