Legal Research
Cases
Meko v The Queen

Meko v The Queen

Case [2004] WASCA 159 5 August 2004

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: MEKO -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 159

CORAM: STEYTLER J
EM HEENAN J
LE MIERE J

HEARD: 14 APRIL 2004

DELIVERED : 5 AUGUST 2004

FILE NO/S: CCA 227 of 2002
CCA 228 of 2002

BETWEEN: TESFAYE TEKA MEKO
Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram   :MILLER J
File Number            :  INS 92 of 2001

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal - Wilful murder - Lies - "Edwards" direction - Relationship of direction to possible alternative verdicts of murder or manslaughter

Sentencing - Application for leave to appeal against sentence - Wilful murder - Sentence of strict security life imprisonment for 21 years

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave to appeal against sentence allowed
Appeal against sentence dismissed
Appeal against conviction dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr R G W Bayly
Respondent: Mr K P Bates & Mr T B L Scutt

Solicitors:

Appellant: Bayly & O'Brien
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Axford v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980200; 20 April 1998
Banks v The Queen [2003] WASCA 198
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193
R v Nguyen (2001) 118 A Crim R 479
R v Rice [1996] 2 VR 406
R v Woolley (1989) 42 A Crim R 418
Williams v R (1996) 17 WAR 17

Case(s) also cited:

Broadhurst v R [1964] All ER 111
Dauphin v The Queen [2002] WASCA 104
Griffin v The Queen [2001] WASCA 11
Khoo v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960184; 2 April 1996
Lauritsen v The Queen [2000] WASCA 203
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Osland v R (1998) 197 CLR 316
Roberts v The Queen [2003] WASCA 237
Zoneff v R (2000) 200 CLR 234

STEYTLER J: I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of EM Heenan J. I agree with it and with his Honour's conclusion that the appeal against conviction should be dismissed and that, while leave to appeal against sentence should be granted, that appeal, too, should be dismissed.
EM HEENAN J: After a five day trial before Miller J and a jury the appellant, Tesfaye Teka Meko, was convicted as charged that on 6 November 2000 at Joondanna he wilfully murdered Semegne Dagnew Mola. After hearing submissions about the sentence which should be imposed, the learned trial Judge, on 29 November 2002, sentenced the appellant to strict security life imprisonment with a minimum term of 21 years before becoming eligible for parole, such sentence to date from 6 November 2000, the date of the crime. The appellant now appeals against his conviction and, alternatively, seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed.
There are three grounds advanced in support of the appeal against conviction. Each asserts that the learned trial Judge erred in the direction which he gave…

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 Meko v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Meko v The Queen [2004] WASCA 159
Case: [2004] WASCA 159
Decision Date: 5 AUGUST 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Meko v The Queen was an appeal against a conviction and sentence for wilful murder. The appellant, Meko, had been found guilty of murdering his partner, and was sentenced to strict security life imprisonment for 21 years. The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge's direction on the concept of "wilful murder" was correct, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court considered the "Edwards" direction, which involves explaining the concept of wilful murder and its distinction from manslaughter, to the jury. The court found that the trial judge had adequately provided this direction, despite the absence of any suggestion from the defence that the accused might be guilty of manslaughter. The court held that the direction was appropriate in the circumstances of the case, and did not undermine the jury's ability to consider all possible verdicts.

The court also considered the appellant's application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and that the appellant had not demonstrated that the sentence was palpably unjust. The court noted that the appellant had a history of violence, and that the murder was premeditated and carried out in a brutal manner.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was also dismissed.

Orders