Legal Research
Cases
Michael v The State of Western Australia

Michael v The State of Western Australia

Case [2007] WASCA 100 14 May 2007

Admissibility of Evidence

Misdirection by Trial Judge

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: MICHAEL -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2007] WASCA 100

CORAM: STEYTLER P
McLURE JA
MILLER AJA

HEARD: 6 FEBRUARY 2007

DELIVERED : 14 MAY 2007

FILE NO/S: CACR 235 of 2005

BETWEEN: SHAWKY MICHAEL
Appellant
AND
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :H H JACKSON DCJ
File No  :IND 1546 of 2003

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Evidence - Confessions and admissions - Adequacy of direction to jury

Criminal law - Evidence - Evidence of bad character - Certificate declaring appellant a vexatious litigant - Adequacy of direction to jury

Criminal law - Defences - Provocation - Misdirection by trial Judge - Past history between complainant and appellant - No miscarriage of justice

Criminal law - Jurisdiction, practice and procedure - Denial of procedural fairness - Conduct of trial Judge - Apprehension of bias - No miscarriage of justice

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 245

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr P J Urquhart
Respondent: Mr D Dempster

Solicitors:

Appellant: Young & Young
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Boykovski (1991) 58 A Crim R 436
Burns v The Queen (1975) 132 CLR 258
Cotic (2000) 118 A Crim R 393
Cunningham (1992) 61 A Crim R 412
Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292
Donnini v The Queen (1972) 128 CLR 114
D'Orta-Ekenaike v The Queen [1998] 2 VR 140
Driscoll v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 517
E H Cochrane Ltd v Ministry of Transport [1987] 1 NZLR 146
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337
Galea v Galea (1990) 19 NSWLR 263
Guinan (2001) 121 A Crim R 196
Hart v The Queen (2003) 27 WAR 441
Heron v The Queen (2003) 77 ALJR 908
In Marriage of F (2001) 161 FLR 189
Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488
Lars (1994) 73 A Crim R 91
Livesey v The New South Wales Bar Association (1983) 151 CLR 288
Love (1983) 9 A Crim R 1
MacPherson v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 512
Masciantonio v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 58
Mercer (1993) 67 A Crim R 91
Moffa v The Queen (1977) 138 CLR 601
Perera v The Queen [1986] 1 Qd R 211
R v Gardiner [1981] Qd R 394
R v Hircock [1970] 1 QB 67
R v Mathe [2003] VSCA 165
R v Mawson [1967] VR 205
R v Morley [1988] 2 WLR 963
R v Senior [2001] QCA 346
R v Smith [1967] Qd R 406
R v Wilson and Grimwade [1995] 1 VR 163
Re JRL; Ex parte CJL (1986) 161 CLR 342
Re Lusink; Ex parte Shaw (1980) 55 ALJR 12
Robertson v The Queen [1998] 4 VR 30
RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620
Stingel v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 312
Thompson (2002)…

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 Michael v The State of Western Australia

Details

AGLC: Michael v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 100
Case: [2007] WASCA 100
Decision Date: 14 MAY 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Michael v The State of Western Australia, the appellant, Michael, was convicted of various criminal offences, including assault and stalking, following a trial in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The central dispute in this appeal revolves around the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury, the admissibility of evidence pertaining to the appellant's bad character, and the procedural fairness in the trial process. The appellant contended that the trial judge's directions were inadequate, particularly in relation to the defence of provocation, and that evidence of his bad character should not have been admitted. Additionally, Michael argued that the trial judge exhibited an apprehension of bias and that the overall conduct of the trial resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were sufficiently clear and comprehensive, especially concerning the defence of provocation. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the evidence of the appellant's bad character was properly admitted under the relevant evidentiary principles. The court also needed to assess whether the trial judge's conduct demonstrated an apprehension of bias and if the procedural fairness of the trial was compromised, potentially leading to a miscarriage of justice.

In its reasoning, the court found that the trial judge provided adequate directions to the jury, ensuring that the jury was properly informed of the legal criteria for provocation. The court held that the evidence of the appellant's bad character was relevant and admissible, as it assisted the jury in understanding the context and seriousness of the offences. The court further concluded that there was no apprehension of bias on the part of the trial judge and that the trial was conducted fairly. Consequently, the court determined that there was no miscarriage of justice in the proceedings, affirming the conviction of the appellant.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal, affirming the conviction of the appellant on all counts. The court found that the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate, the evidence of the appellant's bad character was properly admitted, and there was no procedural unfairness or apprehension of bias in the trial.

Orders