MINNITI -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 148
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 148 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:265/2000 | 2 APRIL 2001 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ WALLWORK J MURRAY J | 7/05/01 | |
| 18 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed Conviction quashed Retrial ordered | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ANTONIO MINNITI THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Grievous bodily harm caused Self-defence Criteria for application of second paragraph of Criminal Code (WA), s 248 No criterion that force used reasonably necessary for effective defence |
Legislation: | Criminal Code (WA), s 248 |
Case References: | Gray v The Queen (1998) 98 A Crim R 589 Marwey v The Queen (1977) 138 CLR 630 R v Muratovic [1967] Qd R 15 Robinson v The Queen (1991) 180 CLR 531 Bojovic v The Queen (1999) 113 A Crim R 1 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 175 ALR 315 Griffiths v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 29 House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499 Melbourne v R (1999) 198 CLR 1 Mraz v The Queen (1955) 93 CLR 493 Niciforo v The Queen [2000] WASCA 318 R v Allwood [1997] QCA 57 Van den Hoek v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 158 Wilde v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 365 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : MINNITI -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 148 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- WALLWORK J
MURRAY J
- CCA 266 of 2000
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Grievous bodily harm caused - Self-defence - Criteria for application of second paragraph of Criminal Code (WA), s 248 - No criterion that force used reasonably necessary for effective defence
Legislation:
Criminal Code (WA), s 248
Result:
Appeal allowed
(Page 2)
Conviction quashed
Retrial ordered
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr M T Trowell QC & Mr L M Levy
Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC
Solicitors:
Applicant : Laurie Levy
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Gray v The Queen (1998) 98 A Crim R 589
Marwey v The Queen (1977) 138 CLR 630
R v Muratovic [1967] Qd R 15
Robinson v The Queen (1991) 180 CLR 531
Case(s) also cited:
Bojovic v The Queen (1999) 113 A Crim R 1
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 175 ALR 315
Griffiths v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 29
House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499
Melbourne v R (1999) 198 CLR 1
Mraz v The Queen (1955) 93 CLR 493
Niciforo v The Queen [2000] WASCA 318
R v Allwood [1997] QCA 57
Van den Hoek v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 158
Wilde v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 365
(Page 3)
1 MALCOLM CJ: In my opinion, this appeal against conviction should be allowed, the conviction quashed and…
Continue reading Minniti v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Minniti v The Queen [2001] WASCA 148
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 148
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Minniti v The Queen, the appellant sought to appeal his conviction for causing grievous bodily harm to a police officer. The incident in question occurred in Western Australia, and the case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant argued that he had acted in self-defence, invoking the statutory provision that allows for such a defence under specific circumstances. The crux of the appeal was whether the trial judge had correctly applied the criteria for the second paragraph of section 248 of the Criminal Code (WA) when assessing the appellant's claim of self-defence.
The legal issues that the court had to resolve centred around the interpretation and application of the statutory provision concerning self-defence. Specifically, the court had to determine if the trial judge had erred by not applying the correct legal standard when assessing whether the force used by the appellant was reasonably necessary for effective defence. The appellant contended that the trial judge had failed to consider whether the force used was reasonably necessary, as required by the second paragraph of section 248 of the Criminal Code (WA). The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the trial judge had correctly applied the law and that the force used by the appellant was not reasonably necessary for effective defence.
The court, in its decision, found that the trial judge had indeed misapplied the legal criteria for assessing the appellant's claim of self-defence. The court held that the trial judge had not adequately considered whether the force used was reasonably necessary for effective defence, which is a critical element under the second paragraph of section 248 of the Criminal Code (WA). Consequently, the court concluded that the trial judge's error warranted the quashing of the appellant's conviction and the ordering of a retrial. The court thus allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a retrial.
The legal issues that the court had to resolve centred around the interpretation and application of the statutory provision concerning self-defence. Specifically, the court had to determine if the trial judge had erred by not applying the correct legal standard when assessing whether the force used by the appellant was reasonably necessary for effective defence. The appellant contended that the trial judge had failed to consider whether the force used was reasonably necessary, as required by the second paragraph of section 248 of the Criminal Code (WA). The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the trial judge had correctly applied the law and that the force used by the appellant was not reasonably necessary for effective defence.
The court, in its decision, found that the trial judge had indeed misapplied the legal criteria for assessing the appellant's claim of self-defence. The court held that the trial judge had not adequately considered whether the force used was reasonably necessary for effective defence, which is a critical element under the second paragraph of section 248 of the Criminal Code (WA). Consequently, the court concluded that the trial judge's error warranted the quashing of the appellant's conviction and the ordering of a retrial. The court thus allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a retrial.
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.