MOLIN -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 223

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 223
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:101/2000	Heard:	11 AUGUST 2000
Coram:	IPP J HEENAN J MILLER J	Delivered:	11/08/00
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	JAMIE ROBERT STANLEY MOLIN THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Sentence appeal Whether psychological report should be admitted as fresh evidence on appeal Whether exceptional circumstances exist Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Gavin v R (1991) 6 WAR 195 Neal v R (1982) 56 ALJR 848 Anderson (1997) 92 A Crim R 348 Miles v R (1997) 17 WAR 518 Pratt v R [2000] WASCA 110

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : MOLIN -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 223 CORAM : IPP J

HEENAN J

MILLER J

HEARD : 11 AUGUST 2000 DELIVERED : 11 AUGUST 2000 FILE NO/S : CCA 101 of 2000

CCA 102 of 2000

BETWEEN : JAMIE ROBERT STANLEY MOLIN

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentence appeal - Whether psychological report should be admitted as fresh evidence on appeal - Whether exceptional circumstances exist - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr B R Jackson

Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC

Solicitors:

Applicant : Pryles & Defteros

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Gavin v R (1991) 6 WAR 195
Neal v R (1982) 56 ALJR 848

Case(s) also cited:

Anderson (1997) 92 A Crim R 348
Miles v R (1997) 17 WAR 518
Pratt v R [2000] WASCA 110

(Page 3)

1 IPP J: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence. The applicant was sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment on one count of armed robbery in company. He was declared to be eligible for parole. It is contended that this sentence was manifestly excessive.

2 In support of the application the applicant relies on evidence said to be fresh. Before that material can be considered, of course, leave has to be granted to admit that evidence. The evidence in question is that of a psychologist who examined the applicant after the sentencing process had been completed.

3 It is apparent from the psychologist's report and from an articulate letter (written by the applicant to the Court), which also forms in effect part of the fresh evidence, that the applicant has had a tragic life. He has had serious sexual assaults perpetrated upon him since the age of 8. These assaults were performed by an employer. They continued for several years and they led to serious problems that the applicant experienced during childhood.

4 These matters meant that his childhood was extremely unhappy. He lived a lonely and disturbed life. It is apparent from the psychologist's report that this upbringing negatively…

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 Molin v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Molin v The Queen [2000] WASCA 223
Case: [2000] WASCA 223
Decision Date: 11 AUGUST 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Molin v The Queen involved an appeal against the sentence imposed on the appellant, Molin, who had been convicted of various criminal offences. Molin sought to appeal the sentence by submitting a psychological report as fresh evidence. The report was intended to demonstrate that Molin suffered from a psychological condition that was not previously known or considered at the time of sentencing. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the psychological report could be admitted as fresh evidence and, if so, whether the circumstances were exceptional enough to warrant a re-sentencing hearing.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the psychological report constituted fresh evidence and, if so, whether the circumstances were exceptional enough to warrant a re-sentencing hearing. The Court had to consider the principles governing the admission of fresh evidence in sentencing appeals and determine whether the report met the criteria for being deemed exceptional. This involved examining the nature of the evidence, its relevance, and whether it could have materially influenced the original sentencing decision.

The Court held that the psychological report did not constitute fresh evidence as it was not unknown or unavailable at the time of the original sentencing. The report was based on information that could have been obtained and considered during the original proceedings. The Court emphasised that the appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would warrant the admission of the report as fresh evidence. The Court concluded that the report did not materially differ from what was already known or could have been known at the time of the original sentencing, and thus did not meet the threshold for exceptional circumstances. Consequently, the application to admit the psychological report as fresh evidence was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.