ILIC -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 411
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 411 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:152/2000 | 22 NOVEMBER 2000 | |
| Coram: | IPP J WALLWORK J MURRAY J | 19/12/00 | |
| 25 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for leave to appeal granted Appeal allowed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | TODOR ILIC THE QUEEN JAMIE SAMMUT |
Catchwords: | Criminal Law Evidence Evidentiary matters relating to witnesses and accused persons Whether new evidence fresh evidence Exceptional circumstances Miscarriage of justice Failure of police and defence to diligently seek out witnesses Crowd controllers convicted of unlawful grievous bodily harm and wounding Jury verdicts set aside Retrials ordered |
Legislation: | Criminal Code, s 689 |
Case References: | Boyce v Nunn (1997) 138 FLR 475 Bradshaw v The Queen, unreported; CCA of WA; Library No 970228 delivered 13 May 1997 Dobson v The Queen unreported; CCA, SCt of WA; Library No 8213; 11 April 1990 Gallagher v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 392 Hallett v The Queen (1995) 3 NTJ 1422 Lawless v The Queen (1979) 142 CLR 659 Leuschel v Police (1999) 75 SASR 231 Mickelberg v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 259 Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510 Whitehorn v The Queen (1983) 152 CLR 657 Wyatt v The Queen (1992) 28 FCR 61 Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521 Cleland v The Queen (1982) 151 CLR 1 Clemesha v The Queen [1978] WAR 193 Davies v The King (1937) 57 CLR 170 Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54 Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555 Hubon v The Queen; CCA of WA; Library No 940416; 12 July 1994 Kilner v The Queen [1999] WASCA 189 King v The Queen [1999] WASCA 9 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 Milton v The Queen [2000] WASCA 25 Morris v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 454 R v Bond (1992) 62 A Crim R 383 R v Lobston [1983] Qd R 720 Ronan v The Queen, unreported; CCA of WA; Library No 970073; 28 February 1997 Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : ILIC -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 411 CORAM : IPP J
- WALLWORK J
MURRAY J
- CCA 153 of 2000
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
- Respondent
- CCA 219 of 2000
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
- Respondent
(Page 2)
Catchwords:
Criminal Law - Evidence - Evidentiary matters relating to witnesses and accused persons - Whether new evidence fresh evidence - Exceptional circumstances - Miscarriage of justice - Failure of police and defence to diligently seek out witnesses - Crowd controllers convicted of unlawful grievous bodily harm and wounding - Jury verdicts set aside - Retrials ordered
Legislation:
Criminal…
Continue reading Ilic v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Ilic v The Queen [2000] WASCA 411
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 411
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Ilic v The Queen, the respondents appealed against their convictions for unlawful grievous bodily harm and wounding. The convictions were made following a nightclub incident in Sydney in which a number of people were injured. The respondents were crowd controllers present at the venue. The High Court of Australia was called upon to review the convictions and determine whether the evidence presented in the trial was sufficient and whether there was a miscarriage of justice.
The legal issues before the Court were whether the evidence presented at the trial was fresh evidence, whether there were exceptional circumstances warranting a retrial, and if the failure of the police and defence to diligently seek out witnesses constituted a miscarriage of justice. The respondents argued that the evidence of two witnesses, who were not called to testify at the trial, was fresh and had the potential to materially affect the outcome of the trial. They further argued that the failure of the police and defence to call these witnesses amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
The Court held that the evidence of the two witnesses was indeed fresh and had not been available at the time of the trial. The Court also found that there were exceptional circumstances warranting a retrial, as the failure of the police and defence to call these witnesses had the potential to materially affect the outcome of the trial. The Court found that the failure to call these witnesses constituted a miscarriage of justice, as it deprived the respondents of a fair trial. The Court set aside the jury verdicts and ordered retrials for the respondents.
The Court granted the respondents leave to appeal and allowed the appeal. The convictions of the respondents were quashed, and the matter was remitted for retrial. The Court found that the failure of the police and defence to call the two witnesses amounted to a miscarriage of justice and ordered a retrial for the respondents.
The legal issues before the Court were whether the evidence presented at the trial was fresh evidence, whether there were exceptional circumstances warranting a retrial, and if the failure of the police and defence to diligently seek out witnesses constituted a miscarriage of justice. The respondents argued that the evidence of two witnesses, who were not called to testify at the trial, was fresh and had the potential to materially affect the outcome of the trial. They further argued that the failure of the police and defence to call these witnesses amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
The Court held that the evidence of the two witnesses was indeed fresh and had not been available at the time of the trial. The Court also found that there were exceptional circumstances warranting a retrial, as the failure of the police and defence to call these witnesses had the potential to materially affect the outcome of the trial. The Court found that the failure to call these witnesses constituted a miscarriage of justice, as it deprived the respondents of a fair trial. The Court set aside the jury verdicts and ordered retrials for the respondents.
The Court granted the respondents leave to appeal and allowed the appeal. The convictions of the respondents were quashed, and the matter was remitted for retrial. The Court found that the failure of the police and defence to call the two witnesses amounted to a miscarriage of justice and ordered a retrial for the respondents.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
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.