"D" -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 309

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 309
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:136/2001	Heard:	10 SEPTEMBER 2002
Coram:	WALLWORK J MURRAY J ANDERSON J	Delivered:	22/11/02
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	"D" THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Sexual offences Relationship evidence Whether directions to jury sufficient Decided on the facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Cook v The Queen (2000) 22 WAR 67 BRS (1997) 191 CLR 275 Dawson v The Queen [2001] WASCA 2 Hardingham, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 940105; 3 March 1994 Jaensch v The Queen [2000] WASCA 212 Kailis v The Queen (1999) 21 WAR 100 Mateiasevici (1998) 108 A Crim R 223

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : "D" -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 309 CORAM : WALLWORK J

MURRAY J

ANDERSON J

HEARD : 10 SEPTEMBER 2002 DELIVERED : 22 NOVEMBER 2002 FILE NO/S : CCA 136 of 2001 BETWEEN : "D"

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sexual offences - Relationship evidence - Whether directions to jury sufficient - Decided on the facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr R D Young

Respondent : Mr K M Tavener

Solicitors:

Appellant : Gunning Young

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Cook v The Queen (2000) 22 WAR 67

Case(s) also cited:

BRS (1997) 191 CLR 275
Dawson v The Queen [2001] WASCA 2
Hardingham, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 940105; 3 March 1994
Jaensch v The Queen [2000] WASCA 212
Kailis v The Queen (1999) 21 WAR 100
Mateiasevici (1998) 108 A Crim R 223

(Page 3)

1 WALLWORK J: These are reasons for judgment after the hearing of an appeal by the appellant against his conviction on 14 September 2001 on five counts of sexual penetration of his de facto child under the age of 16 years and three counts of indecent dealing with his de facto child under the age of 16 years . There are two grounds of appeal. They are:

1. Evidence as to the appellant's prior convictions for sexual offences against the complainant should not have been admitted, as the prejudicial effect outweighed the probative value.

2. The learned trial Judge failed to direct the jury that they could not use the evidence of the prior convictions as a basis to reason that the appellant had a propensity to commit that kind of offence.

Background

2 Earlier, in 1992, the appellant had been convicted of committing sexual offences against the complainant when she was 8 years of age. Prior to the trial which commenced on 13 September 2001 which resulted in the eight convictions against which the appellant now appeals, it had been ruled at a directions hearing that evidence was admissible of the…

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 "D" v The Queen

Details

AGLC: "D" v The Queen [2002] WASCA 309
Case: [2002] WASCA 309
Decision Date: 22 NOVEMBER 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, "D" appealed against his conviction for sexual offences. The central issue revolved around whether the directions given to the jury regarding the admissibility and use of relationship evidence were adequate. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia. The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge's instructions to the jury about the evidence of the appellant's relationship with the complainant were sufficient and whether the jury was properly guided to assess the reliability of this evidence in relation to the sexual offence charges.

The court examined the nature of the relationship evidence and the specific directions given by the trial judge. It considered whether the directions were clear enough for the jury to properly evaluate the evidence and decide its relevance and weight. The High Court found that the trial judge's directions were comprehensive and aligned with legal principles governing the admissibility and use of relationship evidence in sexual offence cases. The court held that the directions were adequate and did not leave the jury without proper guidance.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction. The court's decision was based on the view that the jury had been appropriately directed to consider the relationship evidence in the context of the charges, and that any shortcomings in the process did not materially affect the outcome of the trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.