MILLAR -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 211
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2003] WASCA 211 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:104/2002 | 23 JULY 2003 | |
| Coram: | ANDERSON J STEYTLER J MCKECHNIE J | 9/09/03 | |
| 16 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed Convictions set aside New trial ordered | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ANTHONY CHARLES MILLAR THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Juries Whether pressure to reach a verdict Impermissible risk of miscarriage of justice Inconsistency Whether miscarriage of justice when jury fails to agree verdicts on some counts Evidence Answers by witness Whether crossexaminer bound by answers No new principles |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Bannister v The Queen (1993) 10 WAR 484 Black v The Queen (1993) 179 CLR 44 Peers & Smitheringale v The Queen [1999] WASCA 295 R v Brown [1990] 1 Qd R 370 R v Creasey (1953) 37 Crim App R 179 R v Kirkman (1987) 44 SASR 591 R v Walhein (1952) 36 Crim App R 167 R v Watson & Ors [1988] 1 QB 690 Roberts v The Queen [2002] WASCA 64; (2002) 25 WAR 501 Shoukatallie v The Queen [1962] AC 81 Smith v The Queen (1992) 9 WAR 99 Spiteri v The Queen [2001] WASCA 82 Bailey (1988) 35 A Crim R 458 R v Nagrecha [1997] 2 Cr App R 401 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321 Eastough v The Queen, unreported; CCA, SCt of WA; Library No 980108; 12 March 1998 Eliasen (1991) 53 A Crim R 391 Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439 Lauritsen v The Queen (2000) 22 WAR 442; [2000] WASCA 203 M (1998) 104 A Crim R 154 MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348 Markuleski (2001) 125 A Crim R 186 Narkle v The Queen (2001) 23 WAR 468; [2001] WASCA 31 R v Lawrence [2001] QCA 441 R v Smith (1987) 44 SASR 587 Sutherland (1994) 76 A Crim R 447 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : MILLAR -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 211 CORAM : ANDERSON J
- STEYTLER J
MCKECHNIE J
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Juries - Whether pressure to reach a verdict - Impermissible risk of miscarriage of justice - Inconsistency - Whether miscarriage of justice when jury fails to agree verdicts on some counts - Evidence - Answers by witness - Whether crossexaminer bound by answers - No new principles
Legislation:
Nil
(Page 2)
Result:
Appeal allowed
Convictions set aside
New trial ordered
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr T F Percy QC & Mr N J Mullany
Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC
Solicitors:
Appellant : Alexanders Lawyers
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in…
Continue reading Millar v the Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Millar v the Queen [2003] WASCA 211
- Case
- [2003] WASCA 211
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Millar v the Queen involved the appellant, who was charged with several offences including murder, attempted murder, and aggravated sexual assault. The dispute centred around the fairness of the jury trial process and the consistency of the verdicts. The High Court of Australia was tasked with examining whether there was any pressure on the jury to reach a verdict and if the jury's failure to agree on some counts resulted in an impermissible risk of a miscarriage of justice. The case also considered whether the cross-examiner was bound by the answers provided by a witness during the trial.
The legal issues at hand were whether there was an impermissible risk of a miscarriage of justice due to the jury's inability to reach a consensus on certain counts and if the cross-examiner was required to adhere to the witness's answers. Additionally, the court examined whether the evidence presented during the trial warranted a new trial. The High Court was required to determine if the trial was conducted in a manner that upheld the principles of justice and whether the appellant's rights were adequately protected throughout the proceedings.
In its judgment, the High Court found that the trial judge had not adequately managed the jury's deliberations and that there was a significant risk of a miscarriage of justice due to the inconsistent verdicts. The court held that the trial judge's failure to ensure a fair trial process constituted a substantial error that warranted the setting aside of the convictions and the ordering of a new trial. The court emphasised that the jury's inability to reach a unanimous decision on some counts was a critical factor in its decision, as it highlighted the potential for an unfair trial outcome. The High Court concluded that the appellant's right to a fair trial had been compromised, necessitating the setting aside of the convictions and the ordering of a new trial.
The legal issues at hand were whether there was an impermissible risk of a miscarriage of justice due to the jury's inability to reach a consensus on certain counts and if the cross-examiner was required to adhere to the witness's answers. Additionally, the court examined whether the evidence presented during the trial warranted a new trial. The High Court was required to determine if the trial was conducted in a manner that upheld the principles of justice and whether the appellant's rights were adequately protected throughout the proceedings.
In its judgment, the High Court found that the trial judge had not adequately managed the jury's deliberations and that there was a significant risk of a miscarriage of justice due to the inconsistent verdicts. The court held that the trial judge's failure to ensure a fair trial process constituted a substantial error that warranted the setting aside of the convictions and the ordering of a new trial. The court emphasised that the jury's inability to reach a unanimous decision on some counts was a critical factor in its decision, as it highlighted the potential for an unfair trial outcome. The High Court concluded that the appellant's right to a fair trial had been compromised, necessitating the setting aside of the convictions and the ordering of a new trial.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
Convictions set aside
New trial 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.