BOBLETEC -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 222
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 222 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:216/2000 | 12 APRIL 2001 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ WALLWORK J STEYTLER J | 30/07/01 | |
| 39 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | BOBBY CONSTANTIN BOBLETEC THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Extension of time for applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence Extension of time granted Alleged lies during video record of interview Whether directions to jury correct in fact and law Whether miscarriage of justice Significance of lies by applicant on video recorded interview Whether statements in interview could be left with jury as lies to questioning officers No direction that lies could be used as evidence of consciousness of guilt Issue of prevarication by accused |
Legislation: | Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) s 6(1)(a), s 11(a), Sch V |
Case References: | Brewster v Sewell (1876) 1 PD 154 Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1983) 153 CLR 521 Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193 He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523 Jarvis v The Queen (1998) 20 WAR 201 Krakouer v The Queen (1996) 16 WAR 1 Loh v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940508; 2 June 1994 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Mason v The Queen (1995) 15 WAR 165 Mortimer v McCallan (1840) 6 M&W 296; 106 ER 672 Mraz v The Queen (1955) 93 CLR 493 Quach v The Queen [1999] WASC 210 R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677 R v Dao, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980619; 29 October 1998 R v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592 R v Ruich [2000] WASCA 84 Rintel v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 8594; 16 November 1990 Roddan v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980472; 26 August 1998 Ryan v The Queen (1967) 121 CLR 205 Sell v The Queen (1995) 15 WAR 240 Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573 Tsagaris v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980721; 14 December 1998 Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : BOBLETEC -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 222 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- WALLWORK J
STEYTLER J
- CCA 217 of 2000
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Extension of time for applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence - Extension of time granted - Alleged lies during video record of interview - Whether directions to jury correct in fact and law - Whether miscarriage of justice - Significance of lies by applicant on video recorded interview - Whether statements in…
Continue reading Bobletec v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Bobletec v The Queen [2001] WASCA 222
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 222
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Bobletec v The Queen involved the applicant seeking leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence. The applicant argued that there had been a miscarriage of justice due to alleged lies during a video-recorded interview and claimed that the directions given to the jury were incorrect in fact and law. The court was required to determine whether the directions given to the jury were appropriate, whether the lies made by the applicant during the interview could be left with the jury as lies to the questioning officers, and whether the applicant's statements in the interview could be used as evidence of consciousness of guilt. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the applicant's prevarication had any significance in the case.
The court found that the directions given to the jury were appropriate in fact and law and that there was no miscarriage of justice. The court held that the lies made by the applicant during the interview could be left with the jury as lies to the questioning officers, and that the statements in the interview could not be used as evidence of consciousness of guilt. The court also found that the applicant's prevarication did not have any significance in the case.
Based on the court's reasoning, the application for leave to appeal against the conviction and sentence was refused. The court held that there was no basis for allowing an appeal against the conviction and sentence. The court did not find any errors in the trial that would warrant an appeal.
In conclusion, the applicant's application for leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence was refused. The court found that the directions given to the jury were appropriate, that the lies made by the applicant during the interview could be left with the jury, and that there was no miscarriage of justice. The applicant's prevarication did not have any significance in the case.
The court found that the directions given to the jury were appropriate in fact and law and that there was no miscarriage of justice. The court held that the lies made by the applicant during the interview could be left with the jury as lies to the questioning officers, and that the statements in the interview could not be used as evidence of consciousness of guilt. The court also found that the applicant's prevarication did not have any significance in the case.
Based on the court's reasoning, the application for leave to appeal against the conviction and sentence was refused. The court held that there was no basis for allowing an appeal against the conviction and sentence. The court did not find any errors in the trial that would warrant an appeal.
In conclusion, the applicant's application for leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence was refused. The court found that the directions given to the jury were appropriate, that the lies made by the applicant during the interview could be left with the jury, and that there was no miscarriage of justice. The applicant's prevarication did not have any significance in the case.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused
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.