HART -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 103
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 103 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | 19/04/2000 | ||
| Case No: | CCA:208/1999 | 7 MARCH 2000 | |
| Coram: | KENNEDY J WALLWORK J MURRAY J | 7/03/00 | |
| 15 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed Conviction quashed New trial ordered | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | BEVAN JBEZ HART THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Appellant tried for and convicted of offence of doing grievous bodily harm Case depended upon uncorroborated evidence of accomplice Witness admitted prior perjury at preliminary hearing and lies told to investigating police Trial Judge failed to direct jury of danger of conviction, on ground of admitted perjury Conviction quashed |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Bromley v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 315 Chidiac v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR Gipp v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 106 Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439 Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 164 ALR 465 Carr v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 314 Chamberlain v The Queen (1983) 153 CLR 521 Davies and Cody v The King (1937) 57 CLR 170 Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207 Gill v The Queen [1999] WASCA 68 K v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980276; 22 May 1998 Morris v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 454 Nguyen v The Queen [1999] WASCA 192 Palmer v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970263; 21 May 1997 Pollitt v The Queen (1992) 174 CLR 558 R v Dent (1943) 29 Cr App R 120 R v Hart (1914) 10 Cr App R 176 R v Ralph & George (1988) 37 A Crim R 202 Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510 Robinson v The Queen (1995) 13 WAR 451 R v Sutherland [1953] NZLR 676 Whitehorn v The Queen (1983) 152 CLR 657 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : HART -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 103 CORAM : KENNEDY J
- WALLWORK J
MURRAY J
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Appellant tried for and convicted of offence of doing grievous bodily harm - Case depended upon uncorroborated evidence of accomplice - Witness admitted prior perjury at preliminary hearing and lies told to investigating police - Trial Judge failed to direct jury of danger of conviction, on ground of admitted perjury - Conviction quashed
Legislation:
Nil
(Page 2)
Result:
Appeal allowed
Conviction quashed
New trial ordered
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr E J Myers
Respondent : Mr D Dempster
Solicitors:
Appellant : Edward John Myers
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Bromley v…
Continue reading Hart v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Hart v The Queen [2000] WASCA 103
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 103
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Hart v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of the offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. The case hinged on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, who later admitted to perjury and lying to the police. The High Court was tasked with examining whether the trial judge's failure to instruct the jury about the inherent risks of relying on the accomplice's testimony led to a miscarriage of justice. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge's omission to direct the jury on the dangers of convicting based on the accomplice's testimony, given the latter's admitted perjury, constituted a significant error that warranted overturning the conviction.
The court considered the trial judge's failure to warn the jury about the risks of convicting on the basis of the accomplice's testimony a critical error. The judge did not provide the necessary direction, despite the accomplice's prior admissions of perjury and dishonesty to the police. This omission was deemed to have deprived the jury of a vital piece of information necessary to properly assess the credibility of the evidence. The court held that such a failure could lead to a miscarriage of justice and that the appellant's conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.
The court considered the trial judge's failure to warn the jury about the risks of convicting on the basis of the accomplice's testimony a critical error. The judge did not provide the necessary direction, despite the accomplice's prior admissions of perjury and dishonesty to the police. This omission was deemed to have deprived the jury of a vital piece of information necessary to properly assess the credibility of the evidence. The court held that such a failure could lead to a miscarriage of justice and that the appellant's conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
Conviction quashed
New trial 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.