R v AHK

Case [2001] VSCA 220 11 December 2001

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 76 of 2000

THE QUEEN
	v.
A.H.K.

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., BROOKING, J.A. and O'BRYAN, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	31 October 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	11 December 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSCA 220

---

Criminal law – Rape whilst aiding and abetting another person - Verdict unsafe – Fresh evidence comprising retraction by principal witness of material evidence given at trial – Principles to be applied by appellate court discussed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. P.A. Coghlan, Q.C. and Mr. M.J. Croucher	Ms. K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr. A. Shwartz	Saines and Partners

WINNEKE, P.:

In this matter I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of O’Bryan, A.J.A. I agree with his Honour’s conclusion that ground 1 of the application for leave to appeal against conviction should be allowed and that there should be an order for a new trial. I further agree with his Honour’s conclusion that grounds 2 and 3 of the application for leave to appeal against conviction should be dismissed. Because the effect of the Court’s order will be that the matter will have to be re-tried (subject, of course, to the Director’s ultimate determination) it is unnecessary for me to say anything about the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

I desire to add some brief comments of my own with regard to my conclusion that ground 1 of the application should be upheld. In doing so, I gratefully adopt the summary of the relevant facts and events which have been outlined in the judgment of O’Bryan, A.J.A.

The application before this Court proceeded principally upon the submission made by counsel for the applicant that “fresh evidence”, which was tendered to the Court, should lead us to conclude that a miscarriage of justice had occurred at the applicant’s trial in March 2000 and that the verdict of guilty recorded against him on count 5 of the presentment should be set aside. The “fresh evidence” relied upon by the applicant is in the form of an affidavit sworn by the applicant’s solicitor (Michael George Wardell) on 23 October 2001, which affidavit annexes a number of exhibits. In particular the material upon which the applicant relies is that to be found in Exhibits “MGW1” and “MGW4”. The affidavit of the solicitor explains how the material contained in those exhibits came into his possession. It is sufficient for my purposes to say that Exhibit “MGW1” is the letter which the Crown’s principal witness at the trial (whom I shall call “M”) wrote to the applicant whilst he was in prison following his conviction on count 5 of the presentment. I agree with O’Bryan, A.J.A. that the letter exhibited as “MGW1” does not contain any retraction by M of the evidence which she gave at the trial, in which she alleged that the applicant had raped her twice in the bedroom of a friend’s…

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 R v AHK

Details

AGLC: R v AHK [2001] VSCA 220
Case: [2001] VSCA 220
Decision Date: 11 December 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellant, AHK, was convicted of aiding and abetting the rape of a woman by another person. The conviction was appealed on the basis of fresh evidence, which included the principal witness retracting material evidence given at trial. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central legal issue before the court was whether the fresh evidence could lead to a conclusion that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court was required to consider the principles applicable to an appeal based on fresh evidence and the weight to be given to such evidence.

The High Court examined the principles for assessing the admissibility and weight of fresh evidence in criminal appeals. The court emphasised the need to ensure that the fresh evidence was both credible and significant enough to undermine the safety of the original verdict. The court held that the fresh evidence in this case was both credible and of significant weight, leading to a conclusion that the original verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The retraction of material evidence by the principal witness was deemed to be of such importance that it warranted a new trial.

Given the court's determination that the original verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory due to the fresh evidence, the conviction was quashed. The court ordered a new trial to be conducted, providing AHK with an opportunity to be retried in light of the fresh evidence. The High Court's decision underscored the importance of ensuring the safety and satisfaction of verdicts in criminal cases, particularly when new evidence emerges that could materially impact the outcome.

Orders