MILES -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 364
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 364 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:173/2000 | 1 NOVEMBER 2000 | |
| Coram: | WALLWORK J MURRAY J MILLER J | 22/11/00 | |
| 33 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed Conviction quashed Retrial ordered | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | SIMON MILES THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Direction on onus of proof Whether Liberato direction necessary Direction on use to be made of complaint evidence Failure to refer to relevance to credit of complainant Failure to refer to inconsistency in complainant's evidence and her husband's evidence as to terms of complaint made Direction on lies Failure to direct jury to first determine whether a lie told The lie wrongly assumed by trial Judge Whether conviction unsafe Whether inconsistent with acquittal on different count Whether retrial should be ordered |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Edwards v R (1993) 178 CLR 193 Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193 Jones v R (1997) 191 CLR 439 Kilby v The Queen (1973) 129 CLR 460 King v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 423 Latham v The Queen [2000] WASCA 57 Leary v The Queen [1975] WAR 133 Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507 M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487 MacKenzie v R (1996) 190 CLR 348 Middleton v The Queen [2000] WASCA 200 Mraz v The Queen (1955) 93 CLR 493 Parker v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 494 Rabey v R [1980] WAR 84 Reppas v The Queen (1998) 20 WAR 178 Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573 Van Den Hoek (1986) 161 CLR 158 Behan v The Queen [2000] WASCA 204 "D" v R [2000] WASCA 137 Deriz v R [1999] WASCA 267 M v The Queen (1998) 104 A Crim R 154 Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 73 ALJR 1097 Nestorov v R [1999] WASCA 303 Osland v R (1998) 73 ALJR 173 R v Podirsky (1989) 43 A Crim R 404 Ugle v R (1989) 167 CLR 647 Wedd v The Queen [2000] WASCA 273 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : MILES -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 364 CORAM : WALLWORK J
- MURRAY J
MILLER J
- CCA 174 of 2000
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Direction on onus of proof - Whether Liberato direction necessary - Direction on use to be made of complaint evidence - Failure to refer to relevance to credit of complainant - Failure to refer to inconsistency in complainant's evidence and her husband's evidence as to terms of complaint made - Direction on lies - Failure to direct jury to first determine whether a lie told - The lie wrongly assumed by trial Judge - Whether conviction unsafe - Whether inconsistent with…
Continue reading Miles v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Miles v The Queen [2000] WASCA 364
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 364
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Miles v The Queen involved the appellant, who was convicted of sexually assaulting his wife. The central issue in this appeal was whether the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the onus of proof and the use of the complainant's evidence were inadequate and prejudicial, leading to an unsafe and unreliable conviction. The High Court of Australia was tasked with examining the lower court's handling of the directions to the jury and assessing whether these errors necessitated a retrial or merely an appeal.
The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge correctly applied the Liberato direction concerning the onus of proof and the use of the complainant's evidence. Specifically, the court had to determine if the judge's failure to refer to the relevance of the evidence to the credit of the complainant and the inconsistency between her evidence and that of her husband regarding the terms of the complaint were material errors. Furthermore, the court scrutinised whether the trial judge correctly instructed the jury on the concept of lies and whether it was appropriate to assume the lie was told without first determining its veracity.
The court found that the trial judge did not properly direct the jury on several crucial points, leading to a conviction that was unsafe and unreliable. The judge did not adequately address the relevance of the complainant's evidence to her credibility and failed to consider the inconsistency between her testimony and that of her husband. Additionally, the judge did not correctly instruct the jury on the necessity to first determine whether a lie was told before concluding its veracity, thus wrongly assuming the lie was indeed told. These errors were significant and potentially prejudicial, impacting the jury's ability to make a fair assessment of the evidence. The court concluded that the conviction was unsafe and unreliable, and the acquittal on a different count did not resolve the issues of these errors.
The court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a retrial to ensure that the jury could properly assess the evidence without the prejudicial errors made during the initial trial.
The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge correctly applied the Liberato direction concerning the onus of proof and the use of the complainant's evidence. Specifically, the court had to determine if the judge's failure to refer to the relevance of the evidence to the credit of the complainant and the inconsistency between her evidence and that of her husband regarding the terms of the complaint were material errors. Furthermore, the court scrutinised whether the trial judge correctly instructed the jury on the concept of lies and whether it was appropriate to assume the lie was told without first determining its veracity.
The court found that the trial judge did not properly direct the jury on several crucial points, leading to a conviction that was unsafe and unreliable. The judge did not adequately address the relevance of the complainant's evidence to her credibility and failed to consider the inconsistency between her testimony and that of her husband. Additionally, the judge did not correctly instruct the jury on the necessity to first determine whether a lie was told before concluding its veracity, thus wrongly assuming the lie was indeed told. These errors were significant and potentially prejudicial, impacting the jury's ability to make a fair assessment of the evidence. The court concluded that the conviction was unsafe and unreliable, and the acquittal on a different count did not resolve the issues of these errors.
The court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a retrial to ensure that the jury could properly assess the evidence without the prejudicial errors made during the initial trial.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
Conviction quashed
Retrial ordered
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.