MACKENZIE -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 146
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2004] WASCA 146 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:49/2003 | 2 FEBRUARY 2004 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ WHEELER J MCLURE J | 2/07/04 | |
| 29 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeals against conviction dismissed, Leave to appeal against sentence granted, Appeal against sentence dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ALEXANDER RONALD MACKENZIE THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Evidence Confessions Arrest and questioning Whether detention unlawful Discretion to exclude Evidence Confessions Request for a lawyer Unfairness Voluntariness Evidence Confessions Persistent importunity Discretion to exclude Sentencing Principles governing |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | De Jesus v The Queen (1986) 68 ALR 1 Driscoll v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 517. , Harris v Samuels (1973) 5 SASR 439 Hoch v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 292 Hough v Ah Sam (1912) 15 CLR 452 Lenthall v Curran [1933] SASR 248 McDermott v The King (1948) 76 CLR 501 Norton v The Queen (2001) 24 WAR 488 Pollard v The Queen (1992) 176 CLR 177 R v Allan [1977] Crim LR 163 R v Bailey [1958] SASR 301 R v Borsellino [1978] Qd R 507 R v Bradshaw (1978) 18 SASR 83 R v Collins (1976) 12 SASR 501 R v Dugan (1970) 92 WN (NSW) 767 R v Evans [1962] SASR 303 R v Hart [1979] Qd R 8. , R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321 R v Ireland (No 1) [1970] SASR 416 R v Ragen (1964) 81 WN(Pt 1) (NSW) 572 R v Stafford (1976) 13 SASR 392 R v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159 R v White (1976) 13 SASR 276 Salihos v The Queen (1987) 78 ALR 509 Sarek v The Queen [1982] VR 971 Sutton v The Queen (1984) 152 CLR 528 Williams v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 278 Williams v The Queen (1996) 17 WAR 17 Hoy & Ors v The Queen [2002] WASCA 275 Kenneally v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980284; 27 May 1998 Lee v The Queen (1950) 82 CLR 133 Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461 R v Fernando (1997) 95 A Crim R 533 R v Mitchell (1994) 72 A Crim R 200 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : MACKENZIE -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 146 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- WHEELER J
MCLURE J
- CCA 64 of 2003
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MILLER J
File Number : INS 121 OF 2002
Catchwords:
Evidence - Confessions - Arrest and questioning - Whether detention unlawful - Discretion to exclude
(Page 2)
Evidence - Confessions - Request for a lawyer - Unfairness - Voluntariness
Evidence - Confessions - Persistent importunity - Discretion to exclude
Continue reading Mackenzie v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Mackenzie v The Queen [2004] WASCA 146
- Case
- [2004] WASCA 146
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Mackenzie v The Queen, the appellant sought to challenge his conviction and sentence for drug-related offences. The primary legal issues before the court involved the admissibility of his confessions and the voluntariness of those statements, given the circumstances of his arrest and questioning. The appellant argued that his detention was unlawful and that his requests for a lawyer were ignored, which rendered his confessions inadmissible.
The court considered whether the appellant's detention was unlawful and whether his confessions were obtained unfairly. The court found that the detention was lawful and that the appellant's requests for a lawyer were not significant enough to render the confessions inadmissible. The court also examined the voluntariness of the confessions, noting that there was no persistent importunity or oppressive conduct that would render the confessions unreliable. The court exercised its discretion under relevant statutes to admit the evidence.
The court dismissed the appeal against the conviction, affirming that the evidence was properly admitted and sufficient for the conviction. The court also dismissed the appeal against the sentence, finding the sentence to be appropriate in the circumstances. However, the court granted leave to appeal against the sentence, indicating that while the sentence itself was not manifestly excessive, there was a possibility of a different outcome on appeal. Ultimately, the appeal against the sentence was also dismissed, affirming the original sentence.
The court considered whether the appellant's detention was unlawful and whether his confessions were obtained unfairly. The court found that the detention was lawful and that the appellant's requests for a lawyer were not significant enough to render the confessions inadmissible. The court also examined the voluntariness of the confessions, noting that there was no persistent importunity or oppressive conduct that would render the confessions unreliable. The court exercised its discretion under relevant statutes to admit the evidence.
The court dismissed the appeal against the conviction, affirming that the evidence was properly admitted and sufficient for the conviction. The court also dismissed the appeal against the sentence, finding the sentence to be appropriate in the circumstances. However, the court granted leave to appeal against the sentence, indicating that while the sentence itself was not manifestly excessive, there was a possibility of a different outcome on appeal. Ultimately, the appeal against the sentence was also dismissed, affirming the original sentence.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeals against conviction dismissed, Leave to appeal against sentence granted, Appeal against sentence 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.