LATHAM -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 57
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 57 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | 10/03/2000 | ||
| Case No: | CCA:151/1999 | 1 DECEMBER 1999 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ PIDGEON J WHITE J | 1/12/99 | |
| 23 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | RAYMOND JOHN LATHAM THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict Applicant acquitted of nine counts of sexual offences and convicted of two counts of indecent dealing Whether trial Judge's directions regarding burden of proof and corroboration inadequate Convictions quashed and retrial ordered |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Director of Public Prosecutions (Nauru) v Fowler (1984) 154 CLR 627 Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207 Eade v The Queen (1924) 34 CLR 154 F v R (1995) 83 A Crim R 502 Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439 Khan v The Queen [1971] WAR 44 Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507 Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79 Markovina v The Queen (1996) 16 WAR 354 Medcraft v The Queen [1982] WAR 33 Monk v The Queen [1999] WASCA 27 Palmer v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 1 R v Baskerville [1916] 2 KB 658 R v G [1994] 1 Qd 540 R v Tripodi [1961] VR 186 BRS v The Queen (1997) 95 A Crim R 400 Gill v R [1999] WASCA 68 Jones v R (1997) 149 ALR 598 M v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980452, 12 August 1998 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 71 ALJR 91 Mraz v The Queen (1955) 93 CLR 493 R v Kirkham (1987) 44 SASR 591 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : LATHAM -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 57 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- PIDGEON J
WHITE J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict - Applicant acquitted of nine counts of sexual offences and convicted of two counts of indecent dealing - Whether trial Judge's directions regarding burden of proof and corroboration inadequate - Convictions quashed and retrial ordered
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Appeal allowed
(Page 2)
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr R W Richardson
Respondent : Mr S E Stone
Solicitors:
Applicant : Aboriginal Legal Service
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Director of Public Prosecutions (Nauru) v Fowler (1984) 154 CLR 627
Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207
Eade v The Queen (1924) 34 CLR 154
F v R (1995) 83 A Crim R 502
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439
Khan v The Queen [1971] WAR 44
Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507
Longman…
Continue reading Latham v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Latham v The Queen [2000] WASCA 57
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 57
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Latham v The Queen involved the appellant, Latham, who was acquitted of nine counts of sexual offences but convicted of two counts of indecent dealing. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia, which had to determine whether the trial judge's directions regarding the burden of proof and corroboration were inadequate. The appellant argued that the trial judge's directions did not sufficiently emphasise the importance of the prosecution proving the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and failed to adequately address the need for corroboration of the complainant's evidence. The central legal issues revolved around the adequacy of the trial judge's directions and whether these shortcomings rendered the verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory.
The court held that the trial judge's directions did not adequately convey the necessity for the prosecution to establish the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, nor did they sufficiently address the requirement for corroboration. The court found that these deficiencies meant that the jury might not have properly applied the principles of the burden of proof and corroboration, thus affecting the safety and reliability of the verdict. Consequently, the court concluded that the convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory, and the appeal was allowed. The convictions were quashed, and a retrial was ordered to ensure that the appellant received a fair trial with proper judicial directions.
The court held that the trial judge's directions did not adequately convey the necessity for the prosecution to establish the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, nor did they sufficiently address the requirement for corroboration. The court found that these deficiencies meant that the jury might not have properly applied the principles of the burden of proof and corroboration, thus affecting the safety and reliability of the verdict. Consequently, the court concluded that the convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory, and the appeal was allowed. The convictions were quashed, and a retrial was ordered to ensure that the appellant received a fair trial with proper judicial directions.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal 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.