HOBBY -v- R [1999] WASCA 297
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [1999] WASCA 297 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:118/1999 | 7 OCTOBER 1999 | |
| Coram: | KENNEDY J PIDGEON J MURRAY J | 17/12/99 | |
| 27 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | JOHN WAYNE HOBBY THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Perjury Admission into evidence of transcript of allegedly perjured evidence Purpose for which transcript received Receipt of inadmissible evidence Whether ground for discharging jury Whether defence adequately put Whether Weissensteiner direction appropriate |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Cleland v R (1982) 151 CLR 1 Connell v R (1994) 12 WAR 133 Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555 Maric v The Queen (1978) 52 ALJR 631 OGD v R (1997) 98 A Crim R 151 Parker v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960740; 20 December 1996 R v Sharp [1988] 1 WLR 7 Santos v The Queen (1987) 61 ALJR 668 Simic v The Queen (1980) 144 CLR 319 Weissensteiner v R (1993) 178 CLR 217 A Child v Andrews (1995) 12 WAR 552 Christianos v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 9217; 11 April 1992 Cutter v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960015; 17 January 1996 HG v The Queen (1999) 73 ALJR 281 Hinch v Attorney-General (Vict) (1987) 164 CLR 15 Ladd v Debnam, unreported; SCt of WA (Miller J); Library No 980672; 23 November 1998 Phipps v Police (1998) SASC 6574 Pickett v Fuderer, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 980475; 27 August 1998 R v Boxer (1995) 81 A Crim R 299 R v Brennan (1998) 101 A Crim R 214 R v Clune (1999) 72 SASR 420 R v Demeter (1995) 77 A Crim R 462 R v Ellis (1998) 100 A Crim R 49 R v Evans (1998) SASC 6798 R v Fogarty (1996) QCA 418 R v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592 R v Golightly (1996) 17 WAR 401 R v Heginbotham (1995) QCA 56 R v Heinicke (1998) SASC 6752 R v Hnoudis [1999] SASC 203 R v Kanaveilomani (1995) 72 A Crim R 492 R v Olney [1996] 1 Qd R 187 R v Peel [1998] 2 Qd R 400 R v Wallis (1998) QCA 229 R v Wood (1996) QCA 183 Stevenson v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960039; 29 January 1996 Stockman v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960267; 17 May 1996 Tulic v The Queen (1999) FCA 1120 Van De Weil v The Queen (1995) SASC 5202 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : HOBBY -v- R [1999] WASCA 297 CORAM : KENNEDY J
- PIDGEON J
MURRAY J
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Continue reading Hobby v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Hobby v The Queen [1999] WASCA 297
- Case
- [1999] WASCA 297
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Hobby v The Queen, the High Court of Australia was called upon to review the conviction of the appellant, Hobby, on various charges including perjury and other related offences. The dispute centred on the admissibility of a transcript of testimony that was allegedly perjured. This appeal arose from a decision by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The central issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge erred in admitting the transcript into evidence and if this constituted a miscarriage of justice warranting a discharge of the jury.
The legal issues addressed by the court included whether the purpose for which the transcript was received affected its admissibility, whether the receipt of inadmissible evidence alone warranted discharging the jury, and whether the defence had adequately presented their case to the jury. Additionally, the court considered whether a Weissensteiner direction was necessary to guide the jury on the implications of receiving inadmissible evidence. The court examined whether the trial judge's handling of the matter fell outside the range of acceptable judicial responses, thus justifying the discharge of the jury.
The court concluded that the trial judge did not err in admitting the transcript, as it was relevant to the perjury charge and did not prejudice the appellant to the extent of causing a miscarriage of justice. The court held that the defence had adequately argued the implications of the inadmissible evidence to the jury, and that a Weissensteiner direction was not necessary under the circumstances. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction upheld.
The legal issues addressed by the court included whether the purpose for which the transcript was received affected its admissibility, whether the receipt of inadmissible evidence alone warranted discharging the jury, and whether the defence had adequately presented their case to the jury. Additionally, the court considered whether a Weissensteiner direction was necessary to guide the jury on the implications of receiving inadmissible evidence. The court examined whether the trial judge's handling of the matter fell outside the range of acceptable judicial responses, thus justifying the discharge of the jury.
The court concluded that the trial judge did not err in admitting the transcript, as it was relevant to the perjury charge and did not prejudice the appellant to the extent of causing a miscarriage of justice. The court held that the defence had adequately argued the implications of the inadmissible evidence to the jury, and that a Weissensteiner direction was not necessary under the circumstances. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction 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.