K -v- THE QUEEN [2007] WASCA 167

Pending Appeal

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2007] WASCA 167
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACR:23/2007	Heard:	27 JULY 2007
Coram:	WHEELER JA	Delivered:	10/08/07
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave refused Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	K THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	K v The Queen [2007] WASC 31

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : K -v- THE QUEEN [2007] WASCA 167 CORAM : WHEELER JA HEARD : 27 JULY 2007 DELIVERED : 10 AUGUST 2007 FILE NO/S : CACR 23 of 2007 BETWEEN : K

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : HASLUCK J

Citation : K -v- THE QUEEN [2007] WASC 31

File No : SJA 1092 of 2006

Catchwords:

Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

(Page 2)

Result:

Leave refused

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

K v The Queen [2007] WASC 31

(Page 3)

1 WHEELER JA: In 1989, the appellant pleaded guilty to various charges in the Court of Petty Sessions in Perth. Convictions were recorded against him and he was subsequently sentenced. On 12 September 2006, the appellant filed an appeal notice together with a request for an extension of time within which to appeal. The application was dismissed by Hasluck J on 13 February 2007 (K v The Queen [2007] WASC 31). On 23 February 2007, an application for leave to appeal against Hasluck J's decision was lodged. There is an order prohibiting the report of any details which might identify the children involved in the proceedings.

The application before Hasluck J

2 On 3 August 1989, the appellant was sentenced in relation to 20 counts of indecently dealing with a child under the age of 14 and 7 counts of procuring a child to indecently deal. Hasluck J proceeded on the basis that the appeal was intended to relate to all of the convictions covered by the effective aggregate term of 4 years and 6 months' imprisonment (at [12]). However, the affidavit filed in support of the SJA application states that "my only charge was which [sic] relevant to this appeal is procuring" (at par 12).

3 There were five grounds of appeal before his Honour. The grounds are difficult to comprehend. The first appears to suggest that certain information was not made available to the trial Magistrate. The second alleges that the Magistrate "expressed ignorance" regarding a certain exhibit at trial. The third ground relates to the structure of the sentence. The fourth ground alleges that the Magistrate was "affected" by the media. The final ground complains that a psychological report was…

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 K v The Queen

Details

AGLC: K v The Queen [2007] WASCA 167
Case: [2007] WASCA 167
Decision Date: 10 AUGUST 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, the appellant, K, challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which upheld a conviction for a serious criminal offence. The appellant, who was convicted of a charge related to an incident involving violence and potential harm, sought to appeal against the conviction on the basis that the trial judge had erred in his directions to the jury regarding the application of certain legal principles. The central issue was whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate in guiding them on the application of the relevant legal principles to the specific facts of the case.

The court considered whether the trial judge's directions were deficient in adequately explaining the law to the jury, which could potentially result in a miscarriage of justice. The court examined the adequacy of the jury directions in the context of the particular facts and circumstances of the case. It assessed whether the trial judge had provided sufficient guidance to the jury to ensure that they could properly apply the law to the facts as found. The court concluded that the trial judge's directions were adequate and that no miscarriage of justice had occurred. The directions given were appropriate for the jury to apply the law to the facts of the case as presented.

In light of the court's findings, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused. The conviction and sentence of the appellant were upheld. The court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury were sufficient and that the jury was properly guided in applying the law to the facts of the case. The appeal was determined on its own facts, and no error in the trial judge's directions was found.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave refused

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.