LACKNER -v- R [1999] WASCA 145

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[1999] WASCA 145
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:204/1998	Heard:	8 JUNE 1999
Coram:	PIDGEON J ANDERSON J STEYTLER J	Delivered:	23/08/99
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	RICHARD JOSEF BROWN LACKNER THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Jurisdiction practice and procedure Summing up Self defence Jury misdirected on second limb of Criminal Code 1913 (WA) s 248 Jury also directed as to possibility of mistake under Criminal Code 1913 (WA) s 24 No miscarriage of justice in the circumstances
Legislation:	Criminal Code 1913 (WA) s 24 and s 248
Case References:	R v Muratovic [1967] Qd R 15 Australian Coal & Shale Employees Federation v Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621 Garlett v Dillon, unreported; SCt of WA (Scott J); Library No 960353; 5 July 1996 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Krakouer v The Queen (1998) 155 ALR 586 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 Mraz v The Queen (1955) 93 CLR 493 Pemble v The Queen (1971) 124 CLR 107 Prow v R (1989) 42 A Crim R 343 Quartermaine v R (1979) 143 CLR 595 R v Brand, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980590; 9 October 1998 R v Dickson, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990203; 23 April 1999 R v Dinsdale, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990021; 2 February 1999 R v GP (1997) 18 WAR 196 R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394 R v Magoutas (1985) 2 MVR 66 R v Repacholi (1990) 52 A Crim R 49 R v Storey (1978) 140 CLR 364 Randle v R (1995) 81 A Crim R 113 Sindel v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990110; 16 March 1999 Tan v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960188; 1 April 1996 Chan v R (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 Wilde v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 365

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : LACKNER -v- R [1999] WASCA 145 CORAM : PIDGEON J

ANDERSON J

STEYTLER J

HEARD : 8 JUNE 1999 DELIVERED : 23 AUGUST 1999 FILE NO/S : CCA 204 of 1998
CCA 205 of 1998 BETWEEN : RICHARD JOSEF BROWN LACKNER

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Jurisdiction practice and procedure - Summing up - Self defence - Jury misdirected on second limb of Criminal Code 1913 (WA) s 248 - Jury also directed as to possibility of mistake under Criminal Code 1913 (WA) s 24 - No miscarriage of justice in the circumstances

Legislation:

Criminal Code 1913 (WA) s 24 and s 248

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr M R Gunning

Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC & Ms V R Campbell

Solicitors:

Appellant : Gunning

Respondent : Acting State Director of Public Prosecutions

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 Lackner v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Lackner v The Queen [1999] WASCA 145
Case: [1999] WASCA 145
Decision Date: 23 AUGUST 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Lackner v The Queen, the High Court of Australia addressed the appeal against the conviction of the respondent for murder. The appellant, Lackner, contested the sufficiency of the summing up given by the trial judge to the jury concerning the defence of self-defence and the possibility of a mistake under the relevant sections of the Criminal Code 1913 (WA). The trial court had convicted Lackner of murder, a verdict he sought to overturn on the basis of alleged misdirection by the trial judge during the summing up.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the summing up contained errors regarding the second limb of section 248 of the Criminal Code 1913 (WA), which pertains to self-defence, and whether the jury was improperly directed about the possibility of a mistake under section 24 of the same statute. The appellant argued that these alleged errors constituted a misdirection that led to a miscarriage of justice. The court needed to determine if the trial judge's directions were legally sound and whether any errors were substantial enough to warrant a new trial or appeal.

The court examined the summing up given by the trial judge and found that while there were minor imperfections in the articulation of the law related to self-defence and the possibility of a mistake, these did not constitute a fundamental misdirection that would have affected the jury's decision. The court concluded that the trial judge's summing up, taken as a whole, sufficiently conveyed the law to the jury, and there was no reasonable possibility that the jury was misled to Lackner's prejudice. As such, the court determined that no miscarriage of justice had occurred.

Given the findings, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The conviction of the respondent for murder was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed without further order.

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.