JACOBS -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 142

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 142
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:99/1999	Heard:	2 FEBRUARY 2000
Coram:	KENNEDY J STEYTLER J WHEELER J	Delivered:	25/05/00
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	CECIL JAMES JACOBS THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Evidence Confession Corroboration Oral interview followed by audio-visual recorded interview Discretion to exclude confessional evidence on the ground of unfairness No unfairness demonstrated
Legislation:	Criminal Code, s 570D
Case References:	Kelly v The Queen (1995) 12 WAR 405 Mallard v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960505; 11 September 1996 McKinney v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 468 Sell v The Queen (1995) 15 WAR 240 T (A Child) v The Queen (1998) 20 WAR 130 Attorney General's Reference No 1 of 1988 (1988) 49 SASR 1 Cicchino v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 8973; 2 August 1991 Duke v The Queen (1989) 180 CLR 508 Foster v The Queen (1993) 67 ALJR 550 McDermott v The King (1948) 76 CLR 501 R v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159 Van Der Meer v The Queen (1988) 62 ALJR 656

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : JACOBS -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 142 CORAM : KENNEDY J

STEYTLER J

WHEELER J

HEARD : 2 FEBRUARY 2000 DELIVERED : 25 MAY 2000 FILE NO/S : CCA 99 of 1999 BETWEEN : CECIL JAMES JACOBS

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Evidence - Confession - Corroboration - Oral interview followed by audio-visual recorded interview - Discretion to exclude confessional evidence on the ground of unfairness - No unfairness demonstrated

Legislation:

Criminal Code, s 570D

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr P J Hogan

Respondent : Mr J Mactaggart

Solicitors:

Appellant : McDonald & Sutherland

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Kelly v The Queen (1995) 12 WAR 405
Mallard v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960505; 11 September 1996
McKinney v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 468
Sell v The Queen (1995) 15 WAR 240
T (A Child) v The Queen (1998) 20 WAR 130

Case(s) also cited:

Attorney General's Reference No 1 of 1988 (1988) 49 SASR 1
Cicchino v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 8973; 2 August 1991
Duke v The Queen (1989) 180 CLR 508
Foster v The Queen (1993) 67 ALJR 550
McDermott v The King (1948) 76 CLR 501
R v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159
Van Der Meer v The Queen (1988) 62 ALJR 656

(Page 3)

1 KENNEDY J: I have had the benefit of reading in draft the reasons to be published by Wheeler J. For the reasons which her Honour gives, I agree that this appeal should…

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 Jacobs v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Jacobs v The Queen [2000] WASCA 142
Case: [2000] WASCA 142
Decision Date: 25 MAY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jacobs v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of various charges related to drug trafficking and appealed the decision. The central issue in the appeal was whether the trial judge had exercised his discretion correctly in not excluding the appellant's confessional evidence on the ground of unfairness. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues revolved around the admissibility of the appellant's confession and whether the trial judge should have excluded it due to perceived unfairness. The court considered whether the trial judge was correct in his decision to admit the confession despite the absence of independent corroboration. The appellant argued that the process by which the confession was obtained was unfair, but the court had to determine whether this was indeed the case.

The court held that there was no unfairness demonstrated in the process of obtaining the confession. The trial judge had carefully considered the circumstances and was satisfied that the confession was reliable and voluntary. The court found that the trial judge had exercised his discretion correctly, and there was no basis for excluding the confessional evidence. The court also noted that the absence of independent corroboration did not necessarily render the confession inadmissible.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction was upheld. The court confirmed that the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion in admitting the confessional evidence and that there were no grounds for excluding it on the basis of unfairness.

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.