DICK -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 152

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 152
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL	Published:	16/05/2001
Case No:	CCA:242/2000	Heard:	18 APRIL 2001
Coram:	WALLWORK J MURRAY J ANDERSON J	Delivered:	18/04/01
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Convictions quashed Retrial ordered
PDF Version

Parties:	JAMES FLAVELL DICK THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Admissibility of "similar fact" evidence Directions to be given as to such evidence Directions as to lies of appellant out of court
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Cook v The Queen [2000] 22 WAR 67 Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207 Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193 Hoch v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 292 R v Mercer (1994) 67 A Crim R 91 R v Zheng (1996) 83 A Crim R 572 Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234 Buck v R [1983] WAR 372 Nestorov v The Queen [1999] WASCA 303

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : DICK -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 152 CORAM : WALLWORK J

MURRAY J

ANDERSON J

HEARD : 18 APRIL 2001 DELIVERED : 18 APRIL 2001 PUBLISHED : 16 MAY 2001 FILE NO/S : CCA 242 of 2000 BETWEEN : JAMES FLAVELL DICK

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Admissibility of "similar fact" evidence - Directions to be given as to such evidence - Directions as to lies of appellant out of court

Legislation:

Nil

(Page 2)

Result:

Appeal allowed

Convictions quashed
Retrial ordered

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr R D Young

Respondent : Mr D Dempster

Solicitors:

Appellant : Gunning

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Cook v The Queen [2000] 22 WAR 67
Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193
Hoch v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 292
R v Mercer (1994) 67 A Crim R 91
R v Zheng (1996) 83 A Crim R 572
Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234

Case(s) also cited:

Buck v R [1983] WAR 372
Nestorov v The Queen [1999] WASCA 303

(Page 3)

1 WALLWORK J: I have had the benefit of reading in draft the reasons for judgment of Murray J. I agree with his Honour's reasons and conclusions, and there is nothing I wish to add.

2 MURRAY J: The appellant stood trial before a Judge and jury in the District Court on an indictment containing 20 counts of sexual offences. Fourteen counts alleged offences committed against the appellant's brother-in-law and six counts alleged offences committed against his stepson. The appeal does not raise any question as to the joinder of offences against those two complainants and so I say no more about that aspect of the case than that, as will I think emerge from these reasons, there would seem to…

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 Dick v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Dick v The Queen [2001] WASCA 152
Case: [2001] WASCA 152
Decision Date: 16 MAY 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Dick v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of offences related to the unlawful possession of a firearm and was subsequently sentenced. The appeal centred on the admissibility of certain evidence and the directions given to the jury regarding the appellant's out-of-court lies. The High Court of Australia was tasked with examining these issues in the context of the appellant's challenge to his convictions.

The court needed to determine whether the trial judge had erred in admitting certain evidence and in providing directions to the jury about the appellant's out-of-court statements. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the evidence in question was admissible under the rules governing similar fact evidence, and whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were appropriate and sufficient. The appellant argued that the trial judge had misapplied the law in these respects, which had prejudiced his case.

The court found that the trial judge had indeed erred in the admission of the similar fact evidence, as it was not relevant to the charges against the appellant and could have unfairly influenced the jury. Additionally, the court determined that the directions given to the jury about the appellant's out-of-court lies were inadequate. These errors were deemed to be significant, as they potentially prejudiced the appellant's case to a substantial degree. Accordingly, the court concluded that the convictions were unsafe and unreliable.

Given the errors identified, the court allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions, and ordered a retrial. The High Court held that the appellant was entitled to a fresh trial before a different jury, free from the prejudicial impact of the inadmissible evidence and the inadequate directions given to the jury regarding the appellant's out-of-court lies.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Convictions quashed

Retrial ordered

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.