DERIZ -v- R [1999] WASCA 267
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [1999] WASCA 267 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:41/1999 | 8 SEPTEMBER 1999 | |
| Coram: | IPP J WALLWORK J PARKER J | 24/11/99 | |
| 29 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MICHAEL JOSEPH DERIZ THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Conduct and duty of counsel for the prosecution Whether observations in opening unduly inflammatory Criminal law Evidence Sexual offences Admissibility of police questioning Whether accused could identify motive of complainant to lie No objection to admissibility at trial Not wrongly admitted |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Gill v The Queen [1999] WASCA 68 Huynh v The Queen [1999] WASCA 45 Kilby v The Queen (1973) 129 CLR 460 Lyons & Lyons v R (1992) 64 A Crim R 101 Middleton v R (1998) 100 A Crim R 244 Palmer v R (1998) 151 ALR 16 R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677 R v Roulston [1976] 2 NZLR 644 R v Uhrig, unreported; CCA SCt of NSW; 24 October 1996 Shuster v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970180; 25 April 1997 Vella v R (1990) 2 WAR 537 A Child v Andrew (1995) 12 WAR 552 Bellissimo v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950457; 30 August 1995 HG v R (1990) 160 ALR 554 Ireland v R (1970) 126 CLR 321 McNeilly (1981) 4 A Crim R 46 R v Armstrong (1989) 53 SASR 25 Wace v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980124; 24 March 1998 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : DERIZ -v- R [1999] WASCA 267 CORAM : IPP J
- WALLWORK J
PARKER J
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Conduct and duty of counsel for the prosecution - Whether observations in opening unduly inflammatory
Criminal law - Evidence - Sexual offences - Admissibility of police questioning - Whether accused could identify motive of complainant to lie - No objection to admissibility at trial - Not wrongly admitted
Legislation:
Nil
(Page 2)
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr T F Percy QC & Ms S P Richardson
Respondent : Mr K M Tavener
Solicitors:
Appellant : Brian G Bennett & Co
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Gill v The Queen [1999] WASCA 68
Huynh v The Queen [1999] WASCA 45
Kilby v The Queen (1973) 129 CLR 460
Lyons & Lyons v R (1992) 64 A Crim R 101
Middleton v R (1998) 100 A Crim R 244
Palmer v R (1998) 151 ALR 16
R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677
R v Roulston [1976] 2 NZLR 644
R v Uhrig, unreported; CCA SCt of NSW; 24 October 1996
Shuster…
Continue reading Deriz v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Deriz v The Queen [1999] WASCA 267
- Case
- [1999] WASCA 267
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Deriz v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of various sexual offences. He appealed to the High Court of Australia on two grounds: first, that the prosecutor's opening remarks were unduly inflammatory; and second, that evidence of police questioning was wrongly admitted. The prosecutor's opening remarks included a reference to the accused's previous conviction for a sexual offence, which the appellant argued was prejudicial and inflammatory. The accused also contended that evidence of police questioning, which was admitted to show motive for the complainant to lie, should not have been admitted because the accused did not object to its admissibility at trial. The High Court considered whether the prosecutor's opening remarks were unduly prejudicial and whether the evidence of police questioning was wrongly admitted.
The court first considered whether the prosecutor's remarks were unduly prejudicial. It noted that the remarks were not so extreme as to lead the jury to convict on the basis of prejudice alone. The court held that the prosecutor's remarks did not undermine the fairness of the trial. The court then considered whether the evidence of police questioning was wrongly admitted. It held that the appellant had not objected to the admissibility of this evidence at trial, and therefore it was not wrongly admitted. The court held that the evidence was properly admitted to show motive for the complainant to lie.
The appeal was dismissed. The court found that the prosecutor's remarks were not unduly prejudicial and that the evidence of police questioning was properly admitted. The conviction and sentence of the appellant were affirmed. The court held that the trial was conducted fairly and that the appeal should be dismissed.
The court first considered whether the prosecutor's remarks were unduly prejudicial. It noted that the remarks were not so extreme as to lead the jury to convict on the basis of prejudice alone. The court held that the prosecutor's remarks did not undermine the fairness of the trial. The court then considered whether the evidence of police questioning was wrongly admitted. It held that the appellant had not objected to the admissibility of this evidence at trial, and therefore it was not wrongly admitted. The court held that the evidence was properly admitted to show motive for the complainant to lie.
The appeal was dismissed. The court found that the prosecutor's remarks were not unduly prejudicial and that the evidence of police questioning was properly admitted. The conviction and sentence of the appellant were affirmed. The court held that the trial was conducted fairly and that the appeal should be dismissed.
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.