BOUNDS -v- THE QUEEN [2005] WASCA 1
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2005] WASCA 1 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:83/2003 | 2 SEPTEMBER 2004 | |
| Coram: | MURRAY J STEYTLER J MCKECHNIE J | 6/01/05 | |
| 35 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed Conviction of count 2 on indictment quashed | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MATTHEW DAVID BOUNDS THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Possession of child pornography Evidence Admission of new evidence Principles to be applied Evidence of websites Whether propensity evidence Confessions and admissions Whether admission to manager without caution should be excluded Practice and procedure Indictment alleging a simple offence and indictable offence Simple offence a nullity Whether trial fundamentally miscarried |
Legislation: | Censorship Act 1996 (WA), s 59 Criminal Code Amendment Act 2004 (WA) Criminal Code Compilation Act 1913 (WA), s 4 Criminal Code (WA), s 3, s 378A, s 571, s 576, s 577, s 594, s 598AA, s 599, s 602, s 602A, s 612, s 616(2), s 622 District Court of Western Australia Act (WA), s 8, s 42 Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 67 Justices Act (WA), s 20 Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 16 |
Case References: | Buttsworth v The Queen [2004] WASCA 69 Cleland v The Queen (1982) 151 CLR 1 Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427 Gallagher v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 392 Glennon v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 1 Gorman v Indich [1990] WAR 131 Mallard v The Queen (2003) 28 WAR 1 Mallard v The Queen [2003] WASCA 296; 28 WAR 1 Mickelberg v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 259 Nolan v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970260; 22 May 1997 Paciente v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 920574; 10 November 1992 Petty v The Queen (1991) 173 CLR 95 Pfennig v The Queen (1994) 182 CLR 461 R v Cairns (1983) 87 Cr App Rep 287 R v Lee (1950) 82 CLR 133 R v Suresh (1998) 153 ALR 145 R v Swaffield (1997) 192 CLR 159 R v Thompson (1975) 61 Cr App Rep 108 Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510 TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124 Wilde v The Queen (1987) 164 CLR 365 Wilde v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 365 Bradshaw v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970228; 13 May 1997 BRS v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275 Burns v The Queen (1975) 132 CLR 258 Button v The Queen (2002) 25 WAR 382 Harriman v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 590 Hoch v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 292 Lawless v The Queen (1979) 142 CLR 659 Makin v Attorney-General (New South Wales) [1894] AC 57 McDermott v The Queen (1948) 76 CLR 501 R v Amad [1962] VR 545 R v Cox (1967) 52 Cr App Rep 106 R v Lockley [1997] Crim LR 455 R v Smith [1997] 1 Cr App… |
Continue reading Bounds v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Bounds v The Queen [2005] WASCA 1
- Case
- [2005] WASCA 1
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Bounds v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of possession of child pornography, among other charges. The appeal centred around the admissibility of new evidence, specifically websites, as well as the handling of confessions and admissions. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the trial had fundamentally miscarried due to the admission of this new evidence and whether the simple offence on the indictment should be considered a nullity.
The court considered the principles governing the admission of new evidence, particularly in the context of propensity evidence. It was determined that the evidence of the websites could not be classified as propensity evidence. Furthermore, the court examined whether the confession and admission made by the appellant to a manager without the presence of a legal representative should have been excluded. The court concluded that the admission did not lead to a miscarriage of justice and therefore should not be excluded.
The High Court found that the trial did not fundamentally miscarried, and the evidence was properly considered by the jury. The court also determined that the simple offence on the indictment was a nullity as it was not properly before the court. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction on count 2 of the indictment was quashed. This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that all charges are properly before the court and the need for careful consideration of the admissibility of new evidence in criminal cases.
The court considered the principles governing the admission of new evidence, particularly in the context of propensity evidence. It was determined that the evidence of the websites could not be classified as propensity evidence. Furthermore, the court examined whether the confession and admission made by the appellant to a manager without the presence of a legal representative should have been excluded. The court concluded that the admission did not lead to a miscarriage of justice and therefore should not be excluded.
The High Court found that the trial did not fundamentally miscarried, and the evidence was properly considered by the jury. The court also determined that the simple offence on the indictment was a nullity as it was not properly before the court. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction on count 2 of the indictment was quashed. This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that all charges are properly before the court and the need for careful consideration of the admissibility of new evidence in criminal cases.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
Conviction of count 2 on indictment quashed
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.