KING -v- R [1999] WASCA 9
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [1999] WASCA 9 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:114/1998 | 2 DECEMBER 1998 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ KENNEDY J MURRAY J | 7/05/99 | |
| 33 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal against conviction dismissed Appeal against sentence allowed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | JEFFREY WAYNE KING THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Evidence Identification Warning on danger of convicting on disputed evidence Necessary elements of warning Adequacy of warning. Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm with intent Severe damage to victim's skull resulting in loss of an eye Planned assault Sentence increased from four and a half years' to 6 years' imprisonment. |
Case References: | Alexander v the Queen (1981) 145 CLR 395. Alexander v The Queen (1981) 145 CLR 395. Bockfuss v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950063; 22 February 1995. Davies and Cody v The King (1937) 57 CLR 170. Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555. Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555. Grbic v Pitkethly (1992) 65 A Crim R 12. Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298. M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487. R v Apostilides (1984) 154 CLR 563. R v Burchielli [1981] VR 611. R v Grein [1989] WAR 178. R v Grein [1989] WAR 178. R v Haidley [1984] VR 229. R v Pitkin (1995) 80 Cr App R 302. R v Weeder (1982) 71 Cr App R 228. Richardson v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 116. Whitehorn v The Queen (1983) 152 CLR 657. Jones v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 920406; 31 July 1992 Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439 Kelleher v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 534 Mavaddat v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 920036; 17 February 1992 McLaughlan v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950252; 26 May 1995 R v Chikonga, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950089; 10 March 1995 R v Leucas (1995) 78 A Crim R 40 R v McCarthy (1993) 71 A Crim R 395 R v Penny (1997) 91 A Crim R 288 Thompson v The Queen (1992) 8 WAR 387 Woodthorpe v The Queen (1994) 14 WAR 215 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : KING -v- R [1999] WASCA 9 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- KENNEDY J
MURRAY J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
- Appellant
AND
JEFFREY WAYNE KING
Respondent
(Page 2)
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Evidence - Identification - Warning on danger of convicting on disputed evidence - Necessary elements of warning -…
Continue reading King v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- King v The Queen [1999] WASCA 9
- Case
- [1999] WASCA 9
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of King v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm with intent. The victim suffered severe damage to his skull, resulting in the loss of an eye, following a planned assault. The High Court of Australia heard the appeal against the conviction and sentence. The appellant argued that the trial judge had failed to adequately warn the jury of the dangers of convicting on disputed identification evidence, and that the sentence was excessive.
The court examined whether the trial judge's warning to the jury was sufficient in addressing the risks associated with convicting on disputed identification evidence. The court considered the necessary elements of such a warning and whether the warning provided was adequate. The court also examined whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, taking into account the severity of the injury inflicted on the victim and the appellant's intention to cause harm.
The court found that the trial judge's warning to the jury was sufficient in addressing the risks associated with convicting on disputed identification evidence. The court held that the warning provided was adequate and appropriately directed the jury's attention to the need for caution in convicting on such evidence. However, the court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court held that while the severity of the injury inflicted on the victim was a significant factor, the sentence should also take into account the appellant's remorse and the possibility of rehabilitation.
The court allowed the appeal against the sentence, reducing the sentence from four and a half years' to six years' imprisonment. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the trial judge's warning to the jury was adequate.
The court examined whether the trial judge's warning to the jury was sufficient in addressing the risks associated with convicting on disputed identification evidence. The court considered the necessary elements of such a warning and whether the warning provided was adequate. The court also examined whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, taking into account the severity of the injury inflicted on the victim and the appellant's intention to cause harm.
The court found that the trial judge's warning to the jury was sufficient in addressing the risks associated with convicting on disputed identification evidence. The court held that the warning provided was adequate and appropriately directed the jury's attention to the need for caution in convicting on such evidence. However, the court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court held that while the severity of the injury inflicted on the victim was a significant factor, the sentence should also take into account the appellant's remorse and the possibility of rehabilitation.
The court allowed the appeal against the sentence, reducing the sentence from four and a half years' to six years' imprisonment. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the trial judge's warning to the jury was adequate.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal against conviction dismissed
Appeal against sentence 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.