"CJB" v The Queen - [2005] WASCA 113

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: "CJB" -v- THE QUEEN [2005] WASCA 113

CORAM: WHEELER JA
MCLURE JA
PULLIN JA

HEARD: 19 APRIL 2005

DELIVERED : 17 JUNE 2005

FILE NO/S: CCA 97 of 2002

BETWEEN: "CJB"
Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :WILLIAMS DCJ
File No  :BUN 132 of 2000

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against conviction - Sexual offences - Admissibility of evidence of recent complaint - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: In person
Respondent: Mr D Dempster

Solicitors:

Applicant: In person
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

"T" v The Queen [2000] WASCA 153
Kilby v The Queen (1973) 129 CLR 460
R v Osborne [1905] 1 KB 551

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

WHEELER JA:

The appeal

This is an appeal against conviction. On 15 May 2002, the appellant was convicted after a trial by jury of one count of deprivation of liberty, two counts of sexual penetration without consent and one count of threats with intent.

The circumstances of the offences

The circumstances of these offences, as alleged by the Crown at trial, were as follows. The complainant was 16 years old at the time of the alleged events and was living at home with her family. The complainant would occasionally baby‑sit for the appellant's girlfriend. The appellant used to drive her home after baby‑sitting. The complainant's evidence at trial was that, on the day which the offences were said to have occurred, she was at another woman's house with the appellant's girlfriend. The appellant phoned that house while they were there. He said that he was at the Bunbury courthouse and asked the complainant and his girlfriend to come and meet him. The complainant and the girlfriend took a taxi to the courthouse. After the taxi dropped them off the appellant paid the driver and the three of them walked to a car that the appellant had borrowed. The appellant then dropped his girlfriend off at a friend's house and said that he would take the complainant home to her house.
The complainant's evidence was that the appellant instead drove back to the centre of town and told her he was going to "shout" her some drugs. The complainant waited in the car. When the appellant came back he drove to a shopping centre and told the complainant to go and buy a pack of syringes and a bottle of water which the complainant did. They then went into a public toilet where the appellant injected the complainant, with what he said was amphetamines. The complainant's evidence at trial was that she started to feel "drowsy and sick" (AB 52). She remembered vomiting, then getting into the car, being driven to a house and then being carried into the house by the appellant.
Her next…

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 "CJB" v The Queen

Details

AGLC: "CJB" v The Queen [2005] WASCA 113
Case: [2005] WASCA 113
Decision Date: 17 JUNE 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of "CJB" versus The Queen, the appellant, "CJB", sought to appeal against his conviction for a sexual offence. The proceedings took place in the High Court of Australia, the highest judicial authority in the country. The appeal centred on the admissibility of evidence of a recent complaint made by the victim of the sexual offence. The trial judge had allowed this evidence to be presented to the jury, which the appellant argued was erroneous.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge's decision to admit evidence of the recent complaint was within the bounds of the law. The appellant contended that the evidence was prejudicial and should not have been admitted as it was irrelevant to the issues of fact that needed to be determined at the trial. The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the evidence was admissible as it was relevant to proving the appellant's guilt. The court had to decide whether the trial judge's ruling on the admissibility of the evidence was correct, and if not, whether this error was a significant enough miscarriage of justice to warrant a new trial.

The High Court found that the trial judge had indeed erred in admitting the evidence of the recent complaint. The court held that such evidence should only be admitted if it can be shown that it has probative value in relation to an issue that is in dispute and is not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The court found that in this case, the evidence was not sufficiently probative to justify its admission and that it had the potential to cause significant prejudice to the appellant. The court concluded that the error was a significant one, affecting the fairness of the trial and the reliability of the verdict. Consequently, the court quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial.

Orders