NEVILLE -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 62
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2004] WASCA 62 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:150/2003 | 18 FEBRUARY 2004 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ MILLER J EM HEENAN J | 2/04/04 | |
| 44 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Extension of time to appeal granted, Appeal allowed, Retrial ordered | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | JACQUELINE MARGARET NEVILLE THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Application for extension of time to appeal against sentence Lengthy delay Test to be applied Criminal law and procedure Evidence Identification Identification based on knowledge of suspect Voice recognition Whether opinion evidence Admissibility of Whether jury in equal position as witnesses to make comparison Adequacy of trial Judge's direction to jury Whether the ultimate issue of identification taken away from jury |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Alexander v The Queen (1981) 145 CLR 395 Bulejcik v The Queen (1996) 185 CLR 375 Cameron v The Queen [2004] WASCA 16 Chamberlain v The Queen (1984) 153 CLR 521 Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555 Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593 Greaves v Aikman (1994) 74 A Crim R 370 Li v The Queen [2003] NSWCCA 290 Miladinovic v The Queen (1993) 47 FCR 190 Mraz v The Queen (1955) 93 CLR 493 Nguyen v The Queen (2002) 26 WAR 59 Nguyen v The Queen [2002] WASCA 181 R v Brotherton (1992) 29 NSWLR 95 R v Brownlowe (1986) 7 NSWLR 461 R v Bueti (1997) 70 SASR 370 R v Callaghan (2001) 4 VR 79 R v Callaghan [2001] 4 VR 79 R v Corke (1989) 41 A Crim R 292 R v Harris [No 3] [1990] VR 310 R v Hentschel [1988] VR 362 R v Jones and Harris (1989) 41 A Crim R 1 R v Kelly (2002) 129 A Crim R 363 R v Leung (1999) 47 NSWLR 405 R v McHardie [1983] 2 NSWLR 733 R v Miladinovic (1992) 109 ACTR 11 R v Omar [1991] 58 A Crim R 139 R v Smith [1984] 1 NSWLR 462 Smith v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 650 R v Brotherton [1992] 65 A Crim R 301 R v Walker (1998) 101 A Crim R 152 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : NEVILLE -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 62 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- MILLER J
EM HEENAN J
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : McKECHNIE J
File Number : INS 169 OF 2000
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Application for extension of time to appeal against sentence - Lengthy delay - Test to be applied
(Page 2)
Criminal law and procedure - Evidence - Identification - Identification based on knowledge of suspect - Voice recognition -…
Continue reading Neville v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Neville v The Queen [2004] WASCA 62
- Case
- [2004] WASCA 62
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Neville v The Queen involved the appellant who had been convicted and sentenced for criminal offences. The appeal was centred around two main issues: the first was whether the court should grant an extension of time for the appellant to appeal against his sentence, given the considerable delay in lodging the appeal, and the second was the admissibility and adequacy of the direction given by the trial judge concerning the evidence of identification, particularly the voice recognition evidence.
The court had to determine if the lengthy delay in lodging the appeal warranted an extension of time, considering the established tests for such applications. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge properly instructed the jury on the weight to be given to the identification evidence, particularly voice recognition, and whether the ultimate issue of identification was appropriately left to the jury.
In granting the extension of time, the court held that while there was a significant delay, the appellant had demonstrated exceptional circumstances justifying the late appeal. The court further found that the trial judge's direction to the jury on the voice recognition evidence was inadequate. The judge did not sufficiently emphasise the need for the jury to compare the voice in question with the appellant's voice in a manner that allowed them to make an independent assessment, akin to the witnesses. Consequently, the court concluded that the trial judge's direction may have inadvertently removed the ultimate issue of identification from the jury's consideration.
The orders of the court were to grant the extension of time to appeal, allow the appeal, and order a retrial of the case. This decision underscored the importance of clear and precise judicial directions concerning identification evidence, particularly in cases where voice recognition plays a pivotal role.
The court had to determine if the lengthy delay in lodging the appeal warranted an extension of time, considering the established tests for such applications. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge properly instructed the jury on the weight to be given to the identification evidence, particularly voice recognition, and whether the ultimate issue of identification was appropriately left to the jury.
In granting the extension of time, the court held that while there was a significant delay, the appellant had demonstrated exceptional circumstances justifying the late appeal. The court further found that the trial judge's direction to the jury on the voice recognition evidence was inadequate. The judge did not sufficiently emphasise the need for the jury to compare the voice in question with the appellant's voice in a manner that allowed them to make an independent assessment, akin to the witnesses. Consequently, the court concluded that the trial judge's direction may have inadvertently removed the ultimate issue of identification from the jury's consideration.
The orders of the court were to grant the extension of time to appeal, allow the appeal, and order a retrial of the case. This decision underscored the importance of clear and precise judicial directions concerning identification evidence, particularly in cases where voice recognition plays a pivotal role.
Orders
Orders of the court
Extension of time to appeal granted, Appeal allowed, 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.