Haruna v The Queen - [2013] WASCA 170

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: HARUNA -v- THE QUEEN [2013] WASCA 170

CORAM: McLURE P
BUSS JA
MAZZA JA

HEARD: 4 APRIL 2013

DELIVERED : 1 AUGUST 2013

FILE NO/S: CACR 167 of 2012
CACR 199 of 2012

BETWEEN: AMIRUDIN HARUNA
SILVESTER SADUPIN
Appellants
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :WAGER DCJ
File No  :IND 1028 of 2011

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Application for extension of time to appeal - Jury bias - Inappropriate and unacceptable jury behaviour - Miscarriage of justice

Legislation:

Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 115, s 116
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 228B, s 233C

Result:

Leave to appeal on grounds 1, 2, 3 and 5 refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellants: Mr I L K Marshall
Respondent: Mr A L Troy

Solicitors:

Appellants: Legal Aid (WA)
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

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

Crofts v The Queen [1996] HCA 22; (1996) 186 CLR 427
Gillespie v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 149
I v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 204; (2006) 165 A Crim R 420
R v Comerford [1998] 1 WLR 191
R v Czajkowski [2002] NSWCCA 530; (2002) 137 A Crim R 111
R v Evans (1995) 79 A Crim R 66
R v Soma [2003] HCA 13; (2003) 212 CLR 299
R v Twomey [2010] 1 WLR 630
Webb v The Queen [1994] HCA 30; (1994) 181 CLR 41
Wiaceck v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 254

McLURE P: I agree with Mazza JA.
BUSS JA: I agree with Mazza JA.
MAZZA JA: Each of Mr Haruna and Mr Sadupin has applied for an extension of time to appeal and, if granted, to appeal against conviction.
In the case of Mr Haruna, his appeal notice was filed approximately 6 weeks out of time. In the case of Mr Sadupin, his appeal notice was filed some 4 1/2 months out of time.
In each case the delay has been explained, perhaps more convincingly in Mr Haruna's case, but, as the respondent does not oppose the extension of time in either case, I would grant each application.
The appellants were jointly charged with an offence commonly called people smuggling, contrary to s 233C of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The charge on the indictment was in these terms:
[T]hat on and between about 7 October and 9 October 2010 at Indonesia and the seas between Indonesia and the Territory of Christmas Island, Australia, Silvester SADUPIN and Amirudin HARUNA facilitated the bringing or coming to Australia of a group of at least five persons, namely a group of 66 persons, each of whom were non‑citizens and who had or have no lawful right to come to Australia, and did so reckless as to whether the said 66…

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 Haruna v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Haruna v The Queen [2013] WASCA 170
Case: [2013] WASCA 170
Decision Date: 1 AUGUST 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Haruna v The Queen involved an appeal against a conviction for criminal offences. The applicant, Haruna, sought an extension of time to appeal, citing concerns of jury bias and unacceptable behaviour during the original trial. The High Court of Australia was tasked with evaluating the merits of the application and the potential for a miscarriage of justice. The court had to determine whether the circumstances presented justified an extension of time for the appeal, considering the alleged inappropriate behaviour of the jury.

The primary legal issues revolved around whether the conduct of the jury during the trial constituted bias or unacceptable behaviour that could lead to a miscarriage of justice. The court examined the specific incidents cited by Haruna and assessed whether these events were sufficient to warrant an extension of the appeal period. The court also considered the general principles governing extensions of time for appeals and the threshold for establishing a miscarriage of justice.

The High Court found that the jury's conduct, as described, did not amount to bias or unacceptable behaviour that would lead to a miscarriage of justice. The court held that while the jury's actions were regrettable, they did not undermine the integrity of the trial to the extent necessary for an extension of time for appeal. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the finality of criminal judgments and the stringent criteria required to justify an extension of appeal time. Consequently, the application for an extension of time was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court beyond the dismissal of the application for an extension of time. The original conviction remained upheld, and the appeal was not allowed.

Orders