BUTTSWORTH -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 69
| (2004) 29 WAR 1 | |||
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2004] WASCA 69 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:121/2003 | 11 MARCH 2004 | |
| Coram: | MURRAY J TEMPLEMAN J WHEELER J MILLER J MCKECHNIE J | 8/04/04 | |
| 17 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal granted Appeal dismissed | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | HENRY ALBERT BUTTSWORTH THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Convictions for indecent dealing with and sexual penetration of child under 13 Whether evidence of prior incidents of a sexual kind was admissible Whether such evidence to be excluded in the exercise of discretion Whether necessary to prove such incidents beyond reasonable doubt Adequacy of direction given Lengthy deliberation of jury Whether further direction as to deliberation required When jury should have been directed as to a majority verdict Whether jury should have been discharged |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Black v The Queen (1993) 179 CLR 44 BRS v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275 Cook v The Queen (2000) 22 WAR 67 Gipp v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 106 Hoch v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 292 Kailis v The Queen (1999) 21 WAR 100 KRM v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 221 R v Bond [1906] 2 KB 389 Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573 Wilson v The Queen (1970) 123 CLR 334 B v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 599 Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 R v Ball [1911] AC 47 R v Bowman [2001] ACL Rep 130 Qld 289 R v Kostaras (No 2) (2003) 86 SASR 541 R v Lewis [2003] NSWCCA 180 R v Mackay [1985] VR 623 R v TAB [2002] NSWCCA 274 R v Vonarx [1999] 3 VR 618 R v Young [1998] 1 VR 402 Roberts v The Queen [2002] WASCA 64 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : BUTTSWORTH -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 69 CORAM : MURRAY J
- TEMPLEMAN J
WHEELER J
MILLER J
MCKECHNIE J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : WILLIAMS DCJ
File Number : IND 1058 of 2002
(Page 2)
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Convictions for indecent dealing with and sexual penetration of child under 13 - Whether evidence of prior incidents of a sexual kind was admissible - Whether such evidence to be excluded in the exercise of discretion - Whether necessary to prove such incidents beyond reasonable doubt - Adequacy of direction given - Lengthy deliberation of jury - Whether further direction as to deliberation required - When jury should have been directed as to a majority verdict - Whether jury should have been discharged
Continue reading Buttsworth v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Buttsworth v The Queen [2004] WASCA 69
- Case
- [2004] WASCA 69
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Buttsworth v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of multiple counts of indecent dealing with and sexual penetration of a child under 13. The appellant challenged the conviction on several grounds, including the admissibility of evidence of prior incidents of a sexual nature, the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury, and the length of time the jury deliberated before reaching a verdict. The High Court of Australia considered these arguments and ultimately dismissed the appeal.
The legal issues at the heart of the case revolved around the admissibility of evidence of prior sexual incidents, the necessity of proving such incidents beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial judge's handling of the jury's deliberations. The appellant argued that the trial judge should have excluded the evidence of prior incidents as it was prejudicial and irrelevant. Furthermore, the appellant contended that the trial judge should have directed the jury that it was not necessary to prove the prior incidents beyond reasonable doubt. Additionally, the appellant submitted that the trial judge should have given further direction to the jury after they had deliberated for an extended period and should have directed them to return a majority verdict.
The court considered the arguments and found that the trial judge had correctly exercised their discretion in admitting the evidence of prior incidents, as it was relevant to the character and propensity of the appellant. The court held that it was not necessary to prove such incidents beyond reasonable doubt, as they were not the subject of any charge. Regarding the jury's deliberations, the court found that the trial judge had not erred in not directing the jury to return a majority verdict, as the jury had not expressed any difficulty in reaching a unanimous decision. The court concluded that the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate, and the length of their deliberations did not warrant further direction.
In light of the court's findings, the High Court dismissed the appeal and denied the appellant's leave to appeal. The convictions for indecent dealing with and sexual penetration of a child under 13 were upheld. The court did not find merit in any of the grounds of appeal presented by the appellant, and therefore, the convictions were affirmed.
The legal issues at the heart of the case revolved around the admissibility of evidence of prior sexual incidents, the necessity of proving such incidents beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial judge's handling of the jury's deliberations. The appellant argued that the trial judge should have excluded the evidence of prior incidents as it was prejudicial and irrelevant. Furthermore, the appellant contended that the trial judge should have directed the jury that it was not necessary to prove the prior incidents beyond reasonable doubt. Additionally, the appellant submitted that the trial judge should have given further direction to the jury after they had deliberated for an extended period and should have directed them to return a majority verdict.
The court considered the arguments and found that the trial judge had correctly exercised their discretion in admitting the evidence of prior incidents, as it was relevant to the character and propensity of the appellant. The court held that it was not necessary to prove such incidents beyond reasonable doubt, as they were not the subject of any charge. Regarding the jury's deliberations, the court found that the trial judge had not erred in not directing the jury to return a majority verdict, as the jury had not expressed any difficulty in reaching a unanimous decision. The court concluded that the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate, and the length of their deliberations did not warrant further direction.
In light of the court's findings, the High Court dismissed the appeal and denied the appellant's leave to appeal. The convictions for indecent dealing with and sexual penetration of a child under 13 were upheld. The court did not find merit in any of the grounds of appeal presented by the appellant, and therefore, the convictions were affirmed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal granted
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.