OLADEJO -v- R [1999] WASCA 247

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[1999] WASCA 247
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:23/1999	Heard:	10 SEPTEMBER 1999
Coram:	IPP J WALLWORK J WHITE J	Delivered:	17/11/99
No of pages:	22	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	JAMES ADEMOLA OLADEJO THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal against conviction Whether trial Judge limited cross-examination by defence counsel Whether trial Judge misdirected the jury in relation to the evidence Trial Judge informed the Crown of the existence of documents subpoenaed by the defence Whether prejudicial to accused Whether trial Judge's direction to the jury in relation to evidence of a record of a telephonic call was adequate
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil A Child v Andrews (1994) 12 WAR 552 Eastough v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980108; 12 March 1998 HG v R (1999) 160 ALR 554 Hunt & Schulz v Judge Russell & De Pinto (1995) 63 SASR 402 Kilby v R (1973) 129 CLR 460 Ling v R (1996) 90 A Crim R 376 National Employers' Mutual General Association Ltd v Waind [1978] 1 NSWLR 372 Petty & Maiden v R (1991) 173 CLR 95 R v Martin (1959) 60 SR (NSW) 286 R v Mawson [1967] VR 205 R v West Australian Newspaper Holdings Ltd (1995) 16 WAR 508

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : OLADEJO -v- R [1999] WASCA 247 CORAM : IPP J

WALLWORK J

WHITE J

HEARD : 10 SEPTEMBER 1999 DELIVERED : 17 NOVEMBER 1999 FILE NO/S : CCA 23 of 1999 BETWEEN : JAMES ADEMOLA OLADEJO

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Whether trial Judge limited cross-examination by defence counsel - Whether trial Judge misdirected the jury in relation to the evidence - Trial Judge informed the Crown of the existence of documents subpoenaed by the defence - Whether prejudicial to accused - Whether trial Judge's direction to the jury in relation to evidence of a record of a telephonic call was adequate

Legislation:

Nil

(Page 2)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC & Ms V A Prentice

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

A Child v Andrews (1994) 12 WAR 552
Eastough v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980108; 12 March 1998
HG v R (1999) 160 ALR 554
Hunt & Schulz v Judge Russell & De Pinto (1995) 63 SASR 402
Kilby v R (1973) 129 CLR 460
Ling v R (1996) 90 A Crim R 376
National Employers' Mutual General Association Ltd v Waind [1978] 1 NSWLR 372
Petty & Maiden v R (1991) 173 CLR 95
R v Martin (1959) 60 SR (NSW) 286
R v Mawson [1967] VR 205
R v West Australian…

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 Oladejo v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Oladejo v The Queen [1999] WASCA 247
Case: [1999] WASCA 247
Decision Date: 17 NOVEMBER 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Oladejo v The Queen involved an appeal against conviction, where the appellant contested the legal proceedings that led to their conviction. The primary issues were whether the trial judge had improperly restricted the defence's cross-examination, misdirected the jury regarding the evidence, informed the Crown of subpoenaed documents, and whether the trial judge's direction to the jury about the evidence of a telephonic call was adequate. The case was heard and determined in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues in the case were whether the trial judge had limited the scope of cross-examination in a manner that prejudiced the defence, whether the judge misdirected the jury on the interpretation and weight of certain evidence, and whether the trial judge's communication with the Crown about defence-subpoenaed documents was prejudicial to the accused. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge's direction to the jury about the telephonic call record was sufficient to ensure a fair trial.

The High Court found that the trial judge did not limit the cross-examination in a way that prejudiced the defence, nor did the judge misdirect the jury. The court determined that the trial judge's communication with the Crown about the subpoenaed documents did not unfairly prejudice the appellant. Furthermore, the trial judge's direction to the jury regarding the telephonic call record was deemed adequate. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction.

No further orders were made by the court beyond dismissing the appeal.

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.