NORFOLK -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 118
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2002] WASCA 118 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:27/2002 | 2 MAY 2002 | |
| Coram: | WALLWORK J ANDERSON J PARKER J | 10/05/02 | |
| 11 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed Conviction quashed Retrial ordered | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MARK HENRY NORFOLK THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Appeal Accused cross-examined on previous convictions Whether accused had given evidence of good character Whether discretion to allow cross-examination wrongly exercised Evidence of good character |
Legislation: | Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 8(1)(e)(ii) |
Case References: | Cushing v The Queen (1977) WAR 7 Dawson v The Queen (1961) 106 CLR 1 Donnini v The Queen (1972) 128 CLR 114 Harriman v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 590 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 1 R v Perrier (No 1) [1991] 1 VR 697 R v Stalder (1981) 3 A Crim R 87 Chidiac v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 432 Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439 Knight v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 495 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Phillips v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 45 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 Quach v The Queen [1999] WASCA 210 R v Clinch (1994) 72 A Crim R 301 R v Cottrell (1989) 42 A Crim R 31 R v Reppucci (1994) 74 A Crim R 353 Wong v The Queen (2001) 185 ALR 233 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : NORFOLK -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 118 CORAM : WALLWORK J
- ANDERSON J
PARKER J
- CCA 28 of 2002
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal - Accused cross-examined on previous convictions - Whether accused had given evidence of good character - Whether discretion to allow cross-examination wrongly exercised - Evidence of good character
Legislation:
Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 8(1)(e)(ii)
(Page 2)
Result:
Appeal allowed
Conviction quashed
Retrial ordered
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr D Grace QC & Mr M L Tudori
Respondent : Mr D Dempster
Solicitors:
Appellant : Michael Tudori
Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions for WA
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Cushing v The Queen (1977) WAR 7
Dawson v The Queen (1961) 106 CLR 1
Donnini v The Queen (1972) 128 CLR 114
Harriman v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 590
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 1
R v Perrier (No 1) [1991] 1 VR 697
R v Stalder (1981) 3 A Crim R 87
Case(s) also cited:
Chidiac v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 432
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439
Knight v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 495
Continue reading Norfolk v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Norfolk v The Queen [2002] WASCA 118
- Case
- [2002] WASCA 118
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Norfolk v The Queen involved an appeal against a conviction by the appellant, who was found guilty of a criminal offence. The appellant contested the trial judge's decision to allow cross-examination about his previous criminal convictions. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had exercised their discretion correctly in permitting cross-examination about the appellant's prior criminal record. Additionally, the court had to determine if the appellant had provided evidence of good character, which could have influenced the trial judge's decision to allow such cross-examination.
The High Court examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law governing the admissibility of previous criminal convictions during cross-examination. The court held that the trial judge had indeed exercised the discretion to allow cross-examination about the appellant's previous convictions. However, the court found that the trial judge did not consider the appellant's evidence of good character when exercising this discretion. This oversight was a significant factor in determining that the discretion was wrongly exercised. The court concluded that the trial judge should have balanced the probative value of the previous convictions against the potential prejudice to the appellant, and should have taken into account the evidence of good character in making this assessment.
Given the court's finding that the trial judge had wrongly exercised the discretion to allow cross-examination about the appellant's previous convictions, the High Court allowed the appeal. The conviction was quashed, and a retrial was ordered to rectify the procedural error. The court's decision emphasised the importance of considering all relevant factors, including evidence of good character, when exercising the discretion to allow cross-examination about previous convictions. This ruling serves as a reminder to trial judges to carefully weigh the potential prejudice against the probative value of such evidence in every case.
The High Court examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law governing the admissibility of previous criminal convictions during cross-examination. The court held that the trial judge had indeed exercised the discretion to allow cross-examination about the appellant's previous convictions. However, the court found that the trial judge did not consider the appellant's evidence of good character when exercising this discretion. This oversight was a significant factor in determining that the discretion was wrongly exercised. The court concluded that the trial judge should have balanced the probative value of the previous convictions against the potential prejudice to the appellant, and should have taken into account the evidence of good character in making this assessment.
Given the court's finding that the trial judge had wrongly exercised the discretion to allow cross-examination about the appellant's previous convictions, the High Court allowed the appeal. The conviction was quashed, and a retrial was ordered to rectify the procedural error. The court's decision emphasised the importance of considering all relevant factors, including evidence of good character, when exercising the discretion to allow cross-examination about previous convictions. This ruling serves as a reminder to trial judges to carefully weigh the potential prejudice against the probative value of such evidence in every case.
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.