R -v- BARTLETT [No 14] [2014] WASC 352

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WASC 352
Published:	26/09/2014
Case No:	INS:107/2012	Heard:	21 AUGUST 2014
Coram:	EM HEENAN J	Delivered:	21/08/14
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave granted to prosecution to re-open and lead further evidence thought to have been conceded by admissions made in course of trial Mistake as to nature and extent of admissions
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	THE QUEEN PETER MERVYN BARTLETT RONALD GEORGE SAYERS
Catchwords:	Criminal trial and procedure Application by prosecution to re-open case to adduce further evidence Evidence thought to have been agreed by admission by counsel for accused Mistake as to extent or nature of admission Leave to re-open and adduce further evidence allowed
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Dryburgh v The Queen [1961] HCA 54; (1961) 105 CLR 532 Manyam v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 107 R v Chin [1985] HCA 35; (1985) 157 CLR 671 R v Soma [2003] HCA 13; (2003) 212 CLR 299

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : R -v- BARTLETT [No 14] [2014] WASC 352 CORAM : EM HEENAN J HEARD : 21 AUGUST 2014 DELIVERED : 21 AUGUST 2014 PUBLISHED : 26 SEPTEMBER 2014 FILE NO/S : INS 107 of 2012 BETWEEN : THE QUEEN

Prosecution

AND

PETER MERVYN BARTLETT

First Accused

RONALD GEORGE SAYERS

Second Accused

Catchwords:

Criminal trial and procedure - Application by prosecution to re-open case to adduce further evidence - Evidence thought to have been agreed by admission by counsel for accused - Mistake as to extent or nature of admission - Leave to re-open and adduce further evidence allowed

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave granted to prosecution to re-open and lead further evidence thought to have been conceded by admissions made in course of trial

Mistake as to nature and extent of admissions

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Prosecution : Mr P Roberts SC & Mr A L Troy

First Accused : Mr R Richter QC & Mr C Boyce

Second Accused : Mr D Staehli SC & Mr A E Eyers

Solicitors:

Prosecution : Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

First Accused : Clifford Chance

Second Accused : Clifford Chance

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

Dryburgh v The Queen [1961] HCA 54; (1961) 105 CLR 532
Manyam v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 107
R v Chin [1985] HCA 35; (1985) 157 CLR 671
R v Soma [2003] HCA 13; (2003) 212 CLR 299

1 EM HEENAN J: A point of some significance in the course of this trial has arisen in an unusual way. Having commenced his address to the jury, counsel for the prosecution, after the morning adjournment, announced before the return of the jury that he wished to put before the jury a proposed chronology of certain events, by no means all the events, which had been traversed in the evidence.

2 The draft chronology…

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 Bartlett [No 14]

Details

AGLC: R v Bartlett [No 14] [2014] WASC 352
Case: [2014] WASC 352
Decision Date: 26 SEPTEMBER 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a criminal trial where the prosecution sought to re-open its case to adduce further evidence. The defendant, Bartlett, had already been tried and found guilty. The prosecution's application to re-open the case was based on the belief that certain evidence had been agreed to be admitted by the defence counsel during the trial. The defence counsel, however, argued that there had been a misunderstanding regarding the extent or nature of the admissions made.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution was permitted to introduce additional evidence based on what was perceived as admissions made by the defence counsel. The court needed to determine if there had indeed been a clear admission by the defence and, if not, whether there had been a misunderstanding that warranted allowing the prosecution to present the additional evidence.

The court carefully examined the record of the trial to ascertain whether there had been a genuine admission by the defence counsel regarding the introduction of additional evidence. The court found that there had been a misunderstanding between the parties about the scope and nature of the admissions. Given this, the court determined that it was appropriate to grant the prosecution leave to re-open the case and adduce the further evidence that was thought to have been agreed upon, despite the mistake. This decision was based on the court's ability to rectify errors in the understanding of the proceedings to ensure a fair trial.

The final orders of the court were to grant the prosecution leave to re-open and lead the further evidence thought to have been conceded by the admissions made during the trial, acknowledging the mistake as to the nature and extent of those admissions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave granted to prosecution to re-open and lead further evidence thought to have been conceded by admissions made in course of trial

Mistake as to nature and extent of admissions

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.