McCreed v The Queen

Case [2003] WASCA 275

McCREED -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 275



(2003) 27 WAR 554
SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2003] WASCA 275
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:CCA:71/20021 OCTOBER 2003
Coram:MALCOLM CJ
STEYTLER J
MILLER J		14/11/03
30Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Application for leave to appeal refused
A
PDF Version
Parties:WILLIAM SAMUEL McCREED
THE QUEEN

Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure
Whether reasonable apprehension of bias in trial Judge sitting when he had prosecuted accused person 11-1/2 years beforehand
Test to be applied
Whether directions to the jury fair and balanced
Whether direction in relation to recent complaint correct
Whether Black direction given at an inappropriate time
Whether direction in relation to majority verdicts given at appropriate time
Whether verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory

Legislation:
Evidence Act 1996, s 36BD

Case References:
Australian National Industries Ltd v Spedley Securities Ltd (in liq) (1992) 26 NSWLR 411
Black v The Queen (1993) 179 CLR 44
Cleland v The Queen (1982) 151 CLR 1
Commonwealth v Darush, 459 A  2d 727
Del Vecchio II 115 S Ct 1404 (1995)
Del Vecchio II, 31 F 3d 1363 (7th Cir 1994)
Dhanhoa v The Queen [2003) 77 ALJR 1433
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337
Gavin v R (1992) 6 WAR 195
Hoy & Ors v The Queen [2002] WASCA 275
Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488
Kilby v The Queen (1973) 129 CLR 460
King v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 423
Livesey v New South Wales Bar Association (1983) 151 CLR 288
Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd [2000] QB 451
Metropolitan Properties Co (FGC) Ltd v Lannon [1969] 1 QB 577
Minister for Immigration v Jia (2001) 205 CLR 507
Mitchell v Class, 524 NW 2d 860
R v Lucas [1973] VR 693
R v Russell (Judge); Ex parte Reid (1984) 35 SASR 417
R v Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256
Raybos Australia Pty Ltd v Tectran Corporation Pty Ltd (1986) 6 NSWLR 272
Re JRL; Ex parte CJL (1986) 161 CLR 342
Re Lusink; Ex parte Shaw (1980) 55 ALJR 12
Re Polites; Ex parte Hoyts Corporation Pty Ltd (No 2) (1991) 173 CLR 78
Re Watson; Ex parte Armstrong (1976) 136 CLR 248
S & M Motor Repairs Pty Ltd v Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd (1988) 12 NSWLR 358
State v Dominguez, 914 P 2d 141
State v Neeley, 748 P 2d 1091
Turner v State, 926 SW  2d 843
Vakauta v Kelly (1988) 13 NSWLR 502
Vakauta v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568,
Webb v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 41
WI v State, 696 So 2d 457
Cameron v The Queen (2002) CLR 339
Cheatle v The Queen (1993) 177 CLR 541
Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292
Duff v R (1979) 28 ALR 663
Goktas v Government Insurance Office of New South Wales (1993) 31 NSWLR 684
Jago…

Continue reading McCreed v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
McCreed v The Queen [2003] WASCA 275
Case
[2003] WASCA 275
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In McCreed v The Queen, the applicant appealed against his conviction and sentence, arguing that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the trial judge who had prosecuted the applicant for an offence 11-1/2 years prior. The applicant further contended that the directions given to the jury were unfair and unbalanced, and that certain instructions were given at an inappropriate time. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues in this case included whether the trial judge's prior involvement in prosecuting the applicant created a reasonable apprehension of bias, and if the jury directions were fair and balanced. The court was also required to determine whether the direction in relation to a recent complaint was correct, and whether the Black direction was given at an inappropriate time. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the direction in relation to majority verdicts was given at an appropriate time and whether the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory.

The High Court found that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the trial judge, as the judge had made a complete and unequivocal disclosure of their prior involvement with the applicant. The court held that the jury directions were fair and balanced, and that the direction in relation to the recent complaint was correct. The Black direction was found to have been given at an appropriate time, and the direction in relation to majority verdicts was also given at the appropriate time. The court concluded that the verdicts were safe and satisfactory, and therefore dismissed the appeal.

The final order of the court was that the application for leave to appeal was refused. The conviction and sentence of the applicant were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal refused

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.