DARRAGH -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 244

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2004] WASCA 244
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:147/2003	Heard:	2 JULY 2004
Coram:	MALCOLM CJ MURRAY J ROBERTS-SMITH J	Delivered:	2/11/04
No of pages:	17	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	GRAHAM KEVIN DARRAGH THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Evidence Stealing Whether evidence of the existence of a claim for maintenance of a child of whom the appellant was alleged to be the father admissible Evidence relevant to motive and not simply to attack the character or credit of the appellant Evidence admissible Evidence not merely collateral
Legislation:	Criminal Code (WA) s 378(5)(b)
Case References:	Attorney-General v Hitchcock (1847) 1 Exch 91 Piddington v Bennett & Wood Pty Ltd (1940) 63 CLR 533 Attwood v R (1960) 102 CLR 353 Papakosmas v R (1999) 196 CLR 297 R v BD (1997) 94 A Crim R 131 R v Christie [1914] AC 545 R v Pfennig (1995) 182 CLR 461

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : DARRAGH -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 244 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ

MURRAY J

ROBERTS-SMITH J

HEARD : 2 JULY 2004 DELIVERED : 2 NOVEMBER 2004 FILE NO/S : CCA 147 of 2003 BETWEEN : GRAHAM KEVIN DARRAGH

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : NISBET DCJ

File Number : IND 1019 of 2002

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Evidence - Stealing - Whether evidence of the existence of a claim for maintenance of a child of whom the appellant was alleged to be the father admissible - Evidence relevant to motive and not simply

(Page 2)

to attack the character or credit of the appellant - Evidence admissible - Evidence not merely collateral

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA) s 378(5)(b)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr M R Gunning

Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC and Mr C G Astill

Solicitors:

Appellant : Gunning Young

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Attorney-General v Hitchcock (1847) 1 Exch 91
Piddington v Bennett & Wood Pty Ltd (1940) 63 CLR 533

Case(s) also cited:

Attwood v R (1960) 102 CLR 353
Papakosmas v R (1999) 196 CLR 297
R v BD (1997) 94 A Crim R 131
R v Christie [1914] AC 545
R v Pfennig (1995) 182 CLR 461

(Page 3)

1 MALCOLM CJ: This is an appeal against conviction. On 28 August 2003, the appellant was convicted after trial of the offence of stealing a sum of money and gemstones, the property of a person or persons unknown under circumstances of aggravation, namely, that the property was stolen in a dwelling and was of a value exceeding $10,000 contrary to s 378(5)(b) of the Criminal Code.

2 The grounds of appeal as amended at…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Darragh v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] WASCA 244
Decision Date: 2 NOVEMBER 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Darragh v The Queen involved an appeal against a conviction for stealing. The appellant contested the admissibility of certain evidence presented during the trial, specifically regarding a claim for maintenance of a child who was alleged to be his offspring. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the admissibility of this evidence and its relevance to the appellant's motive, rather than being simply collateral to attack his character or credit.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the evidence of the existence of a claim for maintenance was admissible and relevant to the appellant's motive for the alleged theft. The appellant argued that such evidence was irrelevant and merely collateral, potentially prejudicial, and therefore inadmissible. The Crown contended that the evidence was pertinent to the appellant's motive and was not solely for the purpose of attacking his character or credit.

The court examined the principles governing the admissibility of evidence in criminal cases, particularly the relevance of evidence to motive and its potential prejudicial effect. The court found that the evidence in question was relevant to the appellant's motive and was not merely collateral. The court determined that the evidence was not being used to attack the appellant's character or credit but was instead crucial to understanding his potential motive for the alleged theft. Therefore, the evidence was deemed admissible and properly considered by the trial court.

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's decision and the conviction. The judgment affirmed that evidence of a claim for maintenance, when relevant to the motive of the accused, is admissible and should not be excluded solely because it may have some collateral prejudicial effect.

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.