AZADDIN -v- R [1999] WASCA 265
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [1999] WASCA 265 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:92/1998 | 5 OCTOBER1999 | |
| Coram: | KENNEDY J PIDGEON J MURRAY J | 23/11/99 | |
| 16 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | AZIZUL BIN AZADDIN THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Wilful murder Defence of accident not left to jury Applicant convicted of wilful murder Whether verdict should be set aside Direction to jury on intention Whether reference to ordinary, likely or probable consequences of acts rendered direction defective Criminal law and procedure Application for extension of time for appeal against conviction -Three years and nine months out of time No manifest miscarriage of justice |
Legislation: | Criminal Code 1913, s 23 |
Case References: | Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 Gavin v The Queen (1991) 6 WAR 195 Hubert v The Queen (1993) 67 A Crim R 181 Mamote-Kulang v The Queen (1964) 111 CLR 62 Narkle v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 6108; 2 December 1985 R v Callaghan [1942] St R Qd 40 R v Martyr [1962] Qd R 398 R v Van Den Bemd (1992) 70 A Crim R 489 R v Van Den Bemd (1994) 179 CLR 137 Schulze v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 4342; 19 November 1981 The Queen v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30 Thomas v The Queen (1960) 102 CLR 584 Ward v R [1972] WAR 36 A Child v Andrews (1994) 12 WAR 552 Cramer v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980620; 28 October 1998 H G v R [1999] HCA 2; (1999) 73 ALJR 281 Holmes v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970457; 12 September 1997 R v Clinton [1993] 1 WLR 1181 R v Jemielita (1995) 81 A Crim R 409 Stephens v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 664 Suresh v The Queen [1998] HCA 23; (1998) 72 ALJR 769 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : AZADDIN -v- R [1999] WASCA 265 CORAM : KENNEDY J
- PIDGEON J
MURRAY J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Wilful murder - Defence of accident not left to jury - Applicant convicted of wilful murder - Whether verdict should be set aside - Direction to jury on intention - Whether reference to ordinary, likely or probable consequences of acts rendered direction defective
Criminal law and procedure - Application for extension of time for appeal against conviction -Three years and nine months out of time - No manifest miscarriage of justice
Legislation:
Criminal Code 1913, s 23
(Page 2)
Result:
Application dismissed
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : In person
Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC
Continue reading R v Azaddin
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- R v Azaddin [1999] WASCA 265
- Case
- [1999] WASCA 265
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant was convicted of the wilful murder of a woman in Sydney. He applied to the High Court for an extension of time for leave to appeal against his conviction, arguing that the trial judge should not have directed the jury that the defence of accident was not available to them and that the direction given to the jury on intention was defective. The appellant claimed that there was a manifest miscarriage of justice and sought an extension of time because he had been unable to lodge his appeal within the statutory period of 28 days. The High Court found that the trial judge should not have ruled out the possibility of accident, but this did not amount to a manifest miscarriage of justice. The Court also held that the trial judge’s direction to the jury on intention was not defective because it did not require the jury to consider only the ordinary, likely or probable consequences of the appellant’s acts. The application for an extension of time was dismissed because the appellant had been out of time for more than three years and nine months and had not demonstrated a manifest miscarriage of justice.
The appellant argued that the trial judge’s direction on the defence of accident was a misdirection and that the trial judge should have left the matter of accident to the jury. The Court found that the trial judge should have left the defence of accident to the jury, but this did not amount to a manifest miscarriage of justice. The appellant also submitted that the trial judge’s direction to the jury on intention was defective because it required the jury to consider only the ordinary, likely or probable consequences of the appellant’s acts. The Court held that the trial judge’s direction on intention was not defective because it did not require the jury to consider only the ordinary, likely or probable consequences of the appellant’s acts. The appellant’s final submission was that the trial judge had failed to adequately direct the jury on the elements of wilful murder and that this failure amounted to a misdirection. The Court held that the trial judge had not misdirected the jury on the elements of wilful murder.
The Court found that the appellant had not demonstrated a manifest miscarriage of justice. The Court held that the appellant’s application for an extension of time was out of time by more than three years and nine months. The Court held that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of time. The Court dismissed the application for an extension of time for leave to appeal against conviction. The Court held that the appellant had not demonstrated a manifest miscarriage of justice. The Court held that the trial judge’s direction on the defence of accident and intention were not misdirections and that the trial judge had adequately directed the jury on the elements of wilful murder. The Court held that the appellant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of time.
The appellant argued that the trial judge’s direction on the defence of accident was a misdirection and that the trial judge should have left the matter of accident to the jury. The Court found that the trial judge should have left the defence of accident to the jury, but this did not amount to a manifest miscarriage of justice. The appellant also submitted that the trial judge’s direction to the jury on intention was defective because it required the jury to consider only the ordinary, likely or probable consequences of the appellant’s acts. The Court held that the trial judge’s direction on intention was not defective because it did not require the jury to consider only the ordinary, likely or probable consequences of the appellant’s acts. The appellant’s final submission was that the trial judge had failed to adequately direct the jury on the elements of wilful murder and that this failure amounted to a misdirection. The Court held that the trial judge had not misdirected the jury on the elements of wilful murder.
The Court found that the appellant had not demonstrated a manifest miscarriage of justice. The Court held that the appellant’s application for an extension of time was out of time by more than three years and nine months. The Court held that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of time. The Court dismissed the application for an extension of time for leave to appeal against conviction. The Court held that the appellant had not demonstrated a manifest miscarriage of justice. The Court held that the trial judge’s direction on the defence of accident and intention were not misdirections and that the trial judge had adequately directed the jury on the elements of wilful murder. The Court held that the appellant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of time.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application 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.