Antoun v The Queen [2006] HCA 2; (2006) 224 ALR 51
Banks v The Queen [2003] WASCA 198
Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193
G v H (1994) 181 CLR 387
Morrison v Kiwi Electrix Pty Ltd (1998) 19 WAR 482
Peacock v The King (1911) 13 CLR 619
R v Bilick & Starke (1984) 36 SASR 321
R v Dupas [2001] VSCA 109
R v Loader [2004] SASC 234; (2004) 89 SASR 204
The Queen v Hillier [2007] HCA 13; (2007) 233 ALR 634

McKECHNIE J: The accused is charged that on 12 May 2004 at Embleton he wilfully murdered Michael McKrill also known as Kevin Ashley Woodhouse. He has pleaded not guilty. Under the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) by s 108 if I am satisfied that the accused has no case to answer I may find the accused not guilty of the charge without requiring the jury to give its verdict and I exercise this power whether or not the accused has submitted there is no case to answer on the charge.
There is an abundance of evidence that the deceased was shot at around about 4.50 am at the premises of the Bayswater Waves Recreation Centre in Embleton. He was shot four times in rapid succession and there is clearly evidence from which a jury may conclude that he was wilfully murdered. There is also evidence that the weapon was a revolver capable of firing .357 ammunition. So much is conceded by defence in the opening statement of counsel. The issue in the case is the identity of the killer and, particularly, whether there is at present evidence from which an inference is capable of being drawn by a jury that the accused is that person.

The principles

The test for a submission of no case to answer was settled in Morrison v Kiwi Electrix Pty Ltd (1998) 19 WAR 482. Counsel sought to suggest that the High Court in Antoun v The Queen [2006] HCA 2; (2006) 224 ALR 51 may have laid down a different principle. I do not consider that the judgment of Gleeson CJ at [16] ‑ [19] lays down a different principle.…

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 judgment suppresssed

Details

AGLC: judgment suppresssed [2007] WASC 110
Case: [2007] WASC 110
Decision Date: 16 MAY 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the respondent was charged with multiple offences including deprivation of liberty, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and deprivation of liberty with intent to obtain sexual advantage. The trial proceeded in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the jury found the respondent not guilty on all counts, leading to the prosecution's appeal against the no case submission ruling. The legal issues the court was required to consider involved the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence presented against the respondent and the principles governing no case submissions in criminal trials. The court needed to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to allow a reasonable jury, properly directed, to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the respondent's guilt on all counts.

The court's analysis involved a detailed examination of the evidence, applying the principles established in previous cases concerning no case submissions. The court reiterated that for a no case submission to succeed, the prosecution must establish a prima facie case such that no reasonable jury, properly directed, could fail to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt. The court concluded that the evidence, while circumstantial, was sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to be so satisfied. The prosecution's appeal was thus dismissed, upholding the trial judge's decision to leave the matter to the jury. The respondent's acquittal was maintained, as the jury had been properly directed and the evidence was deemed sufficient to support their verdict.

The court emphasised that in cases involving circumstantial evidence, the jury's role in drawing inferences and determining guilt is paramount. The court found that the evidence, when viewed as a whole, was sufficient to establish each element of the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The final orders of the court were to dismiss the prosecution's appeal and to uphold the acquittal of the respondent on all counts.

Orders