MOORE -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 332

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 332
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:260/2000	Heard:	7 & 8 NOVEMBER 2002
Coram:	TEMPLEMAN J WHEELER J ROLFE AJ	Delivered:	5/12/02
No of pages:	23	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	DONALD JOHN MOORE THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Appeal against conviction Arson and conspiracy Guilty plea Whether recantation was credible in all the circumstances Whether fresh evidence was credible Whether confessions were voluntary
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Harman v Ayling, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960633; 5 November 1996 Mickelberg v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 259 Pileggi v The Queen [2001] WASCA 260 Ryll v The Queen [2001] WASCA 185 Azaddin (1999) 109 A Crim R 474 Carter v Evans (1990) 3 WAR 94 Gallagher v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 392 Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501 Mickelberg v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 259 Nuttall v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA (Malcolm CJ); Library No 920090; 26 February 1992 R v Anderson (1997) 92 A Crim R 348 State of Western Australia v Landers [2000] WASCA 125 Stock v The Queen [2000] WASCA 196 Tihanyi v The Queen [1999] WASCA 226

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : MOORE -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 332 CORAM : TEMPLEMAN J

WHEELER J

ROLFE AJ

HEARD : 7 & 8 NOVEMBER 2002 DELIVERED : 5 DECEMBER 2002 FILE NO/S : CCA 260 of 2000 BETWEEN : DONALD JOHN MOORE

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against conviction - Arson and conspiracy - Guilty plea - Whether recantation was credible in all the circumstances - Whether fresh evidence was credible - Whether confessions were voluntary

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr I L K Marshall

Respondent : Mr B Fiannaca

Solicitors:

Appellant : Judith Wickham & Associates

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Harman v Ayling, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960633; 5 November 1996
Mickelberg v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 259
Pileggi v The Queen [2001] WASCA 260
Ryll v The Queen [2001] WASCA 185

Case(s) also cited:

Azaddin (1999) 109 A Crim R 474
Carter v Evans (1990) 3 WAR 94
Gallagher v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 392
Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501
Mickelberg v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 259
Nuttall v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA (Malcolm CJ); Library No 920090; 26 February 1992
R v Anderson (1997) 92 A Crim R 348
State of Western Australia v Landers [2000] WASCA 125
Stock v The Queen [2000] WASCA 196
Tihanyi v The Queen [1999] WASCA 226

(Page 3)

1 TEMPLEMAN J: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons to be…

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 Moore v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Moore v The Queen [2002] WASCA 332
Case: [2002] WASCA 332
Decision Date: 5 DECEMBER 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Moore v The Queen involved the appellant, Moore, who appealed against his conviction for conspiracy to commit arson. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. Moore and his co-conspirators were initially charged with conspiracy to commit arson after a fire broke out at a commercial property. Moore entered a guilty plea to the charge and was sentenced accordingly. However, Moore later sought to have his plea withdrawn on the basis that it was not voluntary and that he had new evidence to present. This evidence included statements from his co-conspirators who claimed that Moore was not involved in the crime.

The legal issues before the court were whether Moore's recantation of his guilty plea was credible in all the circumstances, whether the fresh evidence presented was credible, and whether the confessions made by Moore were voluntary. The court had to consider the principles of voluntariness and credibility in relation to Moore's guilty plea and the fresh evidence presented. The court also had to consider the weight to be given to the confessions made by Moore and the co-conspirators.

The court held that Moore's recantation was not credible in all the circumstances. The court found that Moore had not provided a satisfactory explanation for his change of plea and that the fresh evidence presented was not credible. The court also found that the confessions made by Moore were voluntary and that there was no evidence to suggest that they were coerced. The court held that the convictions and sentences imposed on Moore were correct and dismissed the appeal. The court held that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the verdict and that there was no miscarriage of justice.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed Moore's conviction and sentence. The court held that the trial judge had correctly considered the evidence presented and had not erred in any way. The court held that the convictions and sentences imposed on Moore were just and that there was no basis for granting him leave to appeal. The decision of the court was final and binding, and Moore's appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.