BRK v The Queen

Case [2001] WASCA 161


"BRK" & ORS -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 161



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2001] WASCA 161
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:CCA:172/200020/11/2000
Coram:MURRAY J
OWEN J
PARKER J
25/05/01
34Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Applications for leave to appeal dismissed
PDF Version
Parties:"BRK"
"CKH"
"MJM"
"WRH"
"SEM"
THE QUEEN

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure
Charges of unlawful detention, sexual assault and indecent assault
No element of intention to penetrate or apply force without complainant's consent
Direction required as to mistake
Direction required as to delay in making complaint
Direction as to accuseds' prior good character
Direction as to complainant's failure to offer physical resistance
The direction as to the charge of unlawful detention
Inconsistency of verdicts

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA) s 23, s 24, s 319
Evidence Act 1906 (WA) s 36BD

Case References:

Brennan v The King (1936) 55 CLR 253
Cook v The Queen (2000) 22 WAR 67
Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427
Daniels v The Queen (1989) 1 WAR 435
DPP v Morgan [1976] AC 182
G J Coles & Co Ltd v Goldsworthy [1985] WAR 185
Gamer’s Motor Centre (Newcastle) Pty Ltd v Natwest Wholesale Australia Pty Ltd (1987) 163 CLR 236 at 243
He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523
Holman v R [1970] WAR 2
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439
K & S Lake City Freighters Pty Ltd v Gordon & Gotch Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 309
Kailis v The Queen (1999) 21 WAR 100
Kilby v The Queen (1973) 129 CLR 460
Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79
Masciantonio v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 58
Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 1
Mellifont v Attorney-General (Qld) (1991) 173 CLR 289
Osland v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 316
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd [1986] 2 All ER 635
R v Brown (1975) 10 SASR 139
R v Moloney [1985] AC 905
R v Saragozza [1984] VR 187
R v Trimboli (1979) 21 SASR 577
Re Attorney-General's Reference No 1 of 1977 [1979] WAR 45
Re Warden Calder; Ex parte Cable Sands (WA) Pty Ltd (1998) 20 WAR 343
Sherras v De Rutzen [1895] 1 Q.B. 918
Stingel v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 312
Tracey v The Queen (1999) 20 WAR 555
Ward v The Queen [1972] WAR 36
Wedd v The Queen [2000] WASCA 273

Aik v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950058; 21 February 1995
Alford v Magee 85 CLR 437
Beckwith v The Queen (1976) 135 CLR 569
Charlie v The Queen (1999) 162 ALR 463
Cleland v The Queen (1982) 151 CLR 1
Egerton v Taylor (1996) 90 A Crim R 186
Geraldton Fishermen's Co-operative Ltd v Munro [1963] WAR 129
Glennon v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 1
Jiminez v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 572
Kahatapitiye v The Queen, unreported; CCA…

Continue reading BRK v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
BRK v The Queen [2001] WASCA 161
Case
[2001] WASCA 161
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the appellant, BRK, who had been convicted of several criminal offences, including unlawful detention, sexual assault, and indecent assault. The appeal was against the conviction and sentence, raising multiple issues concerning the directions given to the jury by the trial judge, the consistency of the verdicts, and the delay in making the complaint. The court was tasked with reviewing whether the trial judge erred in the directions provided to the jury regarding the necessary elements of the crimes, the role of consent, the impact of the accused's prior good character, and the complainant's failure to offer physical resistance. Additionally, the court examined whether the verdicts were consistent, considering the appellant was acquitted of some charges.

The central legal issues revolved around the adequacy and correctness of the jury directions. The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury on several critical points, including the requirement for an intention to penetrate or apply force without consent for the sexual assault charge. The appellant also contended that the judge should have directed the jury on the possibility of a mistake and the effect of the accused's prior good character. Furthermore, the appellant challenged the judge's failure to address the complainant's delay in reporting the incidents and her lack of physical resistance. The court was required to determine if these alleged errors were significant enough to affect the outcome of the trial.

The court examined each of the appellant's arguments in detail. It found that while some directions could have been more comprehensive, none were so deficient as to warrant a new trial. The court held that the trial judge's directions sufficiently covered the necessary legal principles for the jury to make informed decisions. Regarding the consistency of the verdicts, the court noted that acquittal on some charges did not necessarily render the convictions on others inconsistent. The court concluded that there was no basis to order a new trial or to grant leave to appeal, finding the arguments to be without merit. Consequently, the applications for leave to appeal were dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Applications for leave to appeal 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.