MULE -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 101
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2002] WASCA 101 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:161/2001 | 11 APRIL 2002 | |
| Coram: | WALLWORK J MURRAY J MILLER J | 1/05/02 | |
| 16 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed Conviction set aside Retrial ordered | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | PELLEGRINO PAUL MULE THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Identification Conflict over identification between two Crown witnesses Directions in relation to identifying witness qualified by reference to non-identifying witness Whether trial Judge should have directed jury specifically in relation to evidence of non-identifying witness Whether this witness undermined Crown case |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Domican v R (1992) 173 CLR 555 Festa v R (2001) 76 ALJR 291 Pollitt v R (1990) 51 A Crim R 227 Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573 Alford v Magee (1952) 85 CLR 437 Cleland v R (1982) 151 CLR 1 Glennon v R (1994) 179 CLR 1 Lowndes v R (1999) 195 CLR 665 Murray v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 5705; 6 February 1985 R v Galea (1989) 46 A Crim R 158 R v Schmahl [1965] VR 745 Roser v R (2001) 24 WAR 254 RPS v R (2000) 199 CLR 620 Wilde v R (1988) 164 CLR 365 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : MULE -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 101 CORAM : WALLWORK J
- MURRAY J
MILLER J
- CCA 162 of 2001
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Identification - Conflict over identification between two Crown witnesses - Directions in relation to identifying witness qualified by reference to non-identifying witness - Whether trial Judge should have directed jury specifically in relation to evidence of non-identifying witness - Whether this witness undermined Crown case
Legislation:
Nil
(Page 2)
Result:
Appeal allowed
Conviction set aside
Retrial ordered
Category: A
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr D Grace QC & Mr L Levy
Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC
Solicitors:
Appellant : Laurie Levy & Associates
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Domican v R (1992) 173 CLR 555
Festa v R (2001) 76 ALJR 291
Pollitt v R (1990) 51 A Crim R 227
Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573
Case(s) also cited:
Alford v Magee (1952) 85 CLR 437
Cleland v R (1982) 151 CLR 1
Glennon v R (1994) 179 CLR 1
Lowndes v R (1999) 195 CLR 665
Murray v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 5705; 6 February 1985
R v Galea (1989) 46 A Crim R 158
R v Schmahl [1965] VR 745
Roser v R (2001) 24 WAR 254
RPS v R (2000) 199 CLR 620
Wilde v R (1988) 164 CLR 365
(Page…
Continue reading Mule v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Mule v The Queen [2002] WASCA 101
- Case
- [2002] WASCA 101
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Mule v The Queen involved an appeal against a conviction for criminal activity. The dispute centred on the identification of the appellant as the perpetrator by two Crown witnesses. The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge should have given specific directions to the jury regarding the evidence of a non-identifying witness and whether this witness's evidence undermined the Crown's case. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia.
The legal issues that the court was required to decide involved the credibility and weight to be given to the identification evidence provided by the witnesses. The court needed to assess whether the trial judge had appropriately directed the jury in relation to the evidence of the non-identifying witness and whether this evidence was significant enough to undermine the overall credibility of the Crown's case. The court also needed to consider the effect of any errors in the directions given to the jury on the safety of the conviction.
The High Court found that the trial judge should have directed the jury specifically in relation to the evidence of the non-identifying witness. The court held that this witness's evidence was significant enough to undermine the Crown's case, and the failure to appropriately direct the jury in relation to this evidence meant that the conviction was unsafe. The court held that the error in the directions given to the jury was a significant one that went to the heart of the Crown's case, and as such, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and a retrial was ordered.
The legal issues that the court was required to decide involved the credibility and weight to be given to the identification evidence provided by the witnesses. The court needed to assess whether the trial judge had appropriately directed the jury in relation to the evidence of the non-identifying witness and whether this evidence was significant enough to undermine the overall credibility of the Crown's case. The court also needed to consider the effect of any errors in the directions given to the jury on the safety of the conviction.
The High Court found that the trial judge should have directed the jury specifically in relation to the evidence of the non-identifying witness. The court held that this witness's evidence was significant enough to undermine the Crown's case, and the failure to appropriately direct the jury in relation to this evidence meant that the conviction was unsafe. The court held that the error in the directions given to the jury was a significant one that went to the heart of the Crown's case, and as such, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and a retrial was ordered.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
Conviction set aside
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.