HAYLEY -v- THE QUEEN [2006] WASCA 213

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2006] WASCA 213
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACR:11/2005	Heard:	21 SEPTEMBER 2006
Coram:	STEYTLER P WHEELER JA McLURE JA	Delivered:	23/10/06
No of pages:	15	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	BELINDA JANE HAYLEY THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal against conviction Where prejudicial evidence inadvertently introduced at trial Where evidence highly probative Whether trial Judge should have discharged jury Whether inadequate direction on propensity evidence Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), Ch 2, Pt 5.2, Pt 5.4 Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 233BAA(4) Customs Regulations 1926 (Cth), reg 179AA, Sch 1AA
Case References:	Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427 Suresh v The Queen (1998) 72 ALJR 769 Atholwood (2000) 110 A Crim R 417 Evans v The Queen [2004] WASCA 10 Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593 Hayley v The Queen [2006] WASCA 33 Pellicciotti v The Queen [2004] WASCA 10 R v Best [1998] 4 VR 603 RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620 TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124 Weiss v The Queen (2005) 80 ALJR 444

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : HAYLEY -v- THE QUEEN [2006] WASCA 213 CORAM : STEYTLER P

WHEELER JA

McLURE JA

HEARD : 21 SEPTEMBER 2006 DELIVERED : 23 OCTOBER 2006 FILE NO/S : CACR 11 of 2005 BETWEEN : BELINDA JANE HAYLEY

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MULLER DCJ

File No : IND 14 of 2004

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Where prejudicial evidence inadvertently introduced at trial - Where evidence highly probative - Whether trial Judge should have discharged jury - Whether inadequate direction on propensity evidence - Turns on own facts

(Page 2)

Legislation:
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), Ch 2, Pt 5.2, Pt 5.4
Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 233BAA(4)
Customs Regulations 1926 (Cth), reg 179AA, Sch 1AA

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr R Richter QC

Respondent : Mr D W L Renton

Solicitors:

Appellant : Andrew Maughan

Respondent : Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427
Suresh v The Queen (1998) 72 ALJR 769

Case(s) also cited:

Atholwood (2000) 110 A Crim R 417
Evans v The Queen [2004] WASCA 10
Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593
Hayley v The Queen [2006] WASCA 33
Pellicciotti v The Queen [2004] WASCA 10
R v Best [1998] 4 VR 603
RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620

(Page 3)

TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124
Weiss v The Queen (2005) 80 ALJR 444

(Page 4)

1 STEYTLER P: On 4 February 2005 the appellant was convicted, after a trial by jury…

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 Hayley v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hayley v The Queen [2006] WASCA 213
Case: [2006] WASCA 213
Decision Date: 23 OCTOBER 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Hayley v The Queen involved the appellant, Hayley, who was convicted of criminal offences and sought to appeal his conviction. The appeal hinged on the inadvertent introduction of prejudicial evidence during the trial and the handling of this evidence by the trial judge. Specifically, the appellant argued that the trial judge should have discharged the jury or given a more adequate direction on the use of propensity evidence, given its highly probative nature. The case was heard and determined in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the trial judge had erred in not discharging the jury upon the inadvertent introduction of prejudicial evidence, and whether the judge's direction to the jury on the use of propensity evidence was adequate. The appellant contended that the prejudicial evidence was so powerful that it could not be ignored and that the trial judge should have taken stronger action to mitigate its impact. Additionally, the appellant argued that the trial judge did not sufficiently caution the jury on the dangers of using propensity evidence to infer a disposition to commit the offence.

In considering these issues, the court examined the trial judge's handling of the prejudicial evidence and the direction given to the jury. The High Court held that the trial judge did not err in not discharging the jury, as the evidence was not so prejudicial that its admission could not be cured by a proper direction. The court found that the trial judge's direction to the jury was adequate and appropriately cautioned them on the use of propensity evidence. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the appellant's conviction.

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.