GILL -v- R [1999] WASCA 68
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [1999] WASCA 68 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:190/1998 | 7 APRIL 1999 | |
| Coram: | PIDGEON J WALLWORK J PARKER J | 23/06/99 | |
| 27 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ADAM JOSEPH GILL THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Appeal Sexual penetration Charge No corroboration warning Not required Criminal law Appeal Questions during police investigation and at trial Admissibility Whether miscarriage |
Legislation: | Evidence Act 1906 (WA) s 36 BE |
Case References: | Boyle v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980125; 24 March 1998 Leary v R [1975] WAR 133 Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR Mraz v The Queen (1955) 93 CLR 493 Palmer v R (1997) 151 ALR 16 Palmer v R (1997) 151 ALR 16 Palmer v R (1998) 151 ALR 16 R v Higgins (1829) 3 C & P 603, 172 ER 565 R v Uhrig, unreported; CCA (NSW); 24 October 1996 Uhle v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970149; 11 April 1997 A child v Andrews (1995) 12 WAR 552 Butun v R, unreported, CCA SCt of WA; Library No 8717 Dominian v R (1992) 60 A Crim R 169 HG v R 160 ALR 554 K v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980276 Kaighin v R (1990) 1 WAR 390 Krakouer v R (1998) 155 ALR 586 Quartermaine v R (1979) 143 CLR 595 Roissetter v R (1984) 11 A Crim R 325 Varney v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960463; 23 August 1996 Wilde v R (1988) 164 CLR 365 Wray v R (1955) 93 CLR 494 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : GILL -v- R [1999] WASCA 68 CORAM : PIDGEON J
- WALLWORK J
PARKER J
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal - Sexual penetration - Charge - No corroboration warning - Not required
Criminal law - Appeal - Questions during police investigation and at trial - Admissibility - Whether miscarriage
Legislation:
Evidence Act 1906 (WA) s 36 BE
Result:
Appeal dismissed
(Page 2)
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr M R Hall
Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC & Ms F K Zempilas
Solicitors:
Appellant : Shane Brennan
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Boyle v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980125; 24 March 1998
Leary v R [1975] WAR 133
Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR
Mraz v The Queen (1955) 93 CLR 493
Palmer v R (1998) 151 ALR 16
R v Higgins (1829) 3 C & P 603, 172 ER 565
R…
Continue reading Gill v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Gill v The Queen [1999] WASCA 68
- Case
- [1999] WASCA 68
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Gill v The Queen, the appellant, Mr. Gill, sought to appeal his conviction for sexual penetration. The appeal was heard and determined by the High Court of Australia. The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in not providing a corroboration warning, which he claimed was necessary for his conviction to be valid. Additionally, he contended that questions posed to him during the police investigation and at trial were prejudicial, potentially leading to a miscarriage of justice.
The court was required to decide whether the failure to provide a corroboration warning was a fundamental error that warranted an appeal. The court also needed to assess if the questions asked during the investigation and trial were indeed prejudicial and, if so, whether they led to a miscarriage of justice. The admissibility of evidence obtained through these questions was another significant legal issue before the court.
The court found that the absence of a corroboration warning was not a fundamental error in this case, as the evidence against the appellant was substantial and corroborated by other means. The court held that the questions posed during the investigation and trial did not prejudice the appellant to the extent that it would constitute a miscarriage of justice. The evidence obtained from these questions was deemed admissible. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.
The court was required to decide whether the failure to provide a corroboration warning was a fundamental error that warranted an appeal. The court also needed to assess if the questions asked during the investigation and trial were indeed prejudicial and, if so, whether they led to a miscarriage of justice. The admissibility of evidence obtained through these questions was another significant legal issue before the court.
The court found that the absence of a corroboration warning was not a fundamental error in this case, as the evidence against the appellant was substantial and corroborated by other means. The court held that the questions posed during the investigation and trial did not prejudice the appellant to the extent that it would constitute a miscarriage of justice. The evidence obtained from these questions was deemed admissible. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.
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.