MILTON -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 25
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 25 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | 22/02/2000 | ||
| Case No: | CCA:150/1998 | 13 DECEMBER 1999 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ WALLWORK J MURRAY J | 13/12/99 | |
| 11 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Extension of time grantedAppeal allowedConvictions quashed Applicant remanded to District Court for a new trial | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | COLIN RONALD MILTON THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Application for new trial Fresh evidence Applicant convicted of indecently dealing with and sexually penetrating a child under the age of 16 New evidence of statements made by complainant to a friend before trial admitting that she proposed to lie and after trial admitting that she had done so to secure conviction of applicant Relevance of such evidence discussed Tests for grant of new trial on the ground of fresh evidence discussed. |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Bannister v The Queen (1993) 10 WAR 484 Gallagher v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 392 Gavin v The Queen (1992) 6 WAR 195 Mickelberg v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 259 R v Bond (1992) 62 A Crim R 383 Smith v The Queen (1993) 9 WAR 99 Davies and Cody v The King [1937] 57 CLR 170 Esther Investments Pty Ltd v Markalinga Pty Ltd (1989) 2 WAR 196 R v Hubert (1993) 67 A Crim R 181 Jackamarra v Krakouer [1998] HCA 27 Lawless v The Queen (1979) 142 CLR 659 Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510 Walker v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980207; 3 March 1998 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : MILTON -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 25 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- WALLWORK J
MURRAY J
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Application for new trial - Fresh evidence - Applicant convicted of indecently dealing with and sexually penetrating a child under the age of 16 - New evidence of statements made by complainant to a friend before trial admitting that she proposed to lie and after trial admitting that she had done so to secure conviction of applicant - Relevance of such evidence discussed - Tests for grant of new trial on the ground of fresh evidence discussed.
Legislation:
Nil
(Page 2)
Result:
Extension of time granted
Appeal allowed
Convictions quashed
Applicant remanded to District Court for a new trial
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Ms B J Lonsdale
Respondent : Mr L P Rayney
Solicitors:
Appellant : Dwyer Durack
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Bannister v The Queen (1993) 10 WAR 484
Gallagher v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 392
Gavin v The Queen (1992) 6 WAR 195
Mickelberg v The Queen…
Continue reading Milton v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Milton v The Queen [2000] WASCA 25
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 25
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Milton v The Queen, the applicant, Milton, appealed against his conviction for indecently dealing with and sexually penetrating a child under the age of 16. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which had appellate jurisdiction in the case. Milton sought a new trial based on fresh evidence which had come to light after his conviction. This evidence comprised statements made by the complainant to a friend both before and after the trial, in which the complainant admitted that she had intended to lie and subsequently did so to secure Milton's conviction.
The legal issues before the court were whether the fresh evidence was of such a nature that it might affect the result of the trial and whether the applicant had exercised due diligence in seeking to adduce the evidence at the earliest opportunity. The court examined the principles governing the grant of a new trial on the basis of fresh evidence and the applicable tests. The central issue was whether the fresh evidence, if believed, would have led to an acquittal or a different outcome in the trial.
The court found that the fresh evidence was of a significant nature and could potentially affect the outcome of the trial. The statements made by the complainant indicated a clear intention to lie and that she had indeed lied to secure the conviction of the applicant. This was deemed to be highly relevant and probative. The court also considered that the applicant had exercised due diligence in seeking to present this evidence. The High Court concluded that the fresh evidence was of such importance that it was likely to affect the result of the trial, and that the applicant had acted with due diligence. Accordingly, the court granted the application for a new trial, quashed the convictions, and ordered that the applicant be remanded to the District Court for a fresh trial.
The legal issues before the court were whether the fresh evidence was of such a nature that it might affect the result of the trial and whether the applicant had exercised due diligence in seeking to adduce the evidence at the earliest opportunity. The court examined the principles governing the grant of a new trial on the basis of fresh evidence and the applicable tests. The central issue was whether the fresh evidence, if believed, would have led to an acquittal or a different outcome in the trial.
The court found that the fresh evidence was of a significant nature and could potentially affect the outcome of the trial. The statements made by the complainant indicated a clear intention to lie and that she had indeed lied to secure the conviction of the applicant. This was deemed to be highly relevant and probative. The court also considered that the applicant had exercised due diligence in seeking to present this evidence. The High Court concluded that the fresh evidence was of such importance that it was likely to affect the result of the trial, and that the applicant had acted with due diligence. Accordingly, the court granted the application for a new trial, quashed the convictions, and ordered that the applicant be remanded to the District Court for a fresh trial.
Orders
Orders of the court
Extension of time grantedAppeal allowedConvictions quashed Applicant remanded to District Court for a new trial
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.