Legal Research
Cases
R v Pinkstone

R v Pinkstone

Case [2001] WASC 137 1 June 2001

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION	:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CITATION	:	R -v- PINKSTONE & ORS [2001] WASC 137

CORAM

: ROBERTS-SMITH J

HEARD

: 4 MAY 2001

DELIVERED

: 1 JUNE 2001

FILE NO/S

:	IND 124 of 2001

BETWEEN

: THE QUEEN

AND
ANTHONY JOHN PINKSTONE
WAYNE JOHN YANKO
MICHAEL BRAZIER
PAUL PHILLIP BRAZIER

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Indictment - Multiple charges - Applications for severance -
Principles

Criminal law - Drug offences - Joint trial of four accused - Applications for separate trials - Relevant principles

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 585, s 586(7), s 587, s 624

Result:

Applications refused

[2001] WASC 137

Representation:

Counsel:

Crown	:	Ms G A Archer
First-named accused	:	In person
Second-named accused :	Mr O P Holdenson QC
Third-named accused	:	Mr A Palumbo
Fourth-named accused :	Mr A Palumbo

Solicitors:

Crown	:	State Director of Public Prosecutions
First-named accused	:	In person
Second-named accused :	Amidzic & Co
Third-named accused	:	Laurie Levy

Fourth-named accused : A Palumbo

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

Atholwood v The Queen [2000] WASCA 76
Baartman, unreported; CCA SCt of NSW; No 60499 of 1994; 6 October 1994
Beck & Smith v The Queen [1984] WAR 127
De Jesus (1986) 61 ALJR 1
DPP v Merriman (1972) 56 Cr App R 766
Evans v The Queen [1999] WASCA 252
Fernando [1999] NSWCA 66
Georgiou [1999] NSWCA 125
Leaman (1987) 28 A Crim 104
Ludlow v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1971) 54 Cr App R 233
Patsalis & Spathis (1999) 107 A Crim R 432
R v Barrell and Wilson (1979) 69 Cr App R 250
R v Connell, Lucas & Carter (No 1) (1992) 8 WAR 518
R v Darby (1981-82) 148 CLR 668
R v Grondkowski & Malinowski [1946] 1 KB 369
R v Harbach (1973) 6 SASR 427
R v Middis & Ors, unreported; SCt of NSW; 27 March 1991
R v Piller, Kramer & Edwards (1995) 86 A Crim R 249
R v Potter and McKenzie [1959] Qd R 378
Subramaniam v The Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965
Sultana (1994) 74 A Crim R 27

[2001] WASC 137

Case(s) also cited:

Alexander v The Queen (1981) 145 CLR 395
Bannon v The Queen (1995) 185 CLR 1
Crawford (1989) 2 Qd R 443
Pfennig v The Queen (1994-5) 182 CLR 461
R v Berghella, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940313; 3 June 1994
R v Dawson (1990) 47 A Crim R 458
R v Demirok [1976] VR 244
R v Holden, unreported; CCA SCt of SA; 259 of 1990; 18 December 1990
R v Kray [1970] 1 QB 125
R v Merritt (1985) 19 A Crim R 360
R v Oliver (1984) 57 ALR 543
R v Prashar (1988) 37 A Crim R 70
Rintel v The Queen [1986] WAR 175
Verma (1987) 30 A Crim R 441

[2001] WASC 137

ROBERTS-SMITH J

ROBERTS-SMITH J: The four accused men are charged jointly on an indictment dated 17 January 2001. The indictment…

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 Pinkstone

Details

AGLC: R v Pinkstone [2001] WASC 137
Case: [2001] WASC 137
Decision Date: 1 JUNE 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Pinkstone, the respondents were charged with various offences including drug-related charges. The respondents applied to have the charges heard separately from each other. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which considered the principles governing the joint trial of multiple accused persons. The court examined whether the joint trial of the four accused would be unfair or prejudicial to any of them.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the joint trial of the four accused would be unfair or prejudicial, thereby requiring a severance of the charges. The respondents argued that the joint trial would be unfair and prejudicial, citing the risk of prejudice from the evidence given by one accused against another. The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the joint trial was appropriate and that the risk of prejudice could be managed by appropriate directions to the jury. The court needed to determine the appropriate principles to apply in assessing whether the joint trial was appropriate.

The court found that the joint trial of the four accused was appropriate and that the risk of prejudice could be managed by appropriate directions to the jury. The court held that the test for severance was whether the joint trial would be unfair or prejudicial to any of the accused. In making this determination, the court considered the nature of the evidence, the similarity of the charges, and the risk of prejudice from the evidence given by one accused against another. The court found that the evidence was not so similar that it would be difficult for the jury to distinguish between the accused, and that the risk of prejudice could be managed by appropriate directions to the jury. The court held that the joint trial was appropriate and that the applications for severance should be dismissed.

The High Court dismissed the applications for severance and ordered that the charges be tried jointly. The court emphasised the importance of managing the risk of prejudice in joint trials and held that appropriate directions to the jury could manage this risk. The court also noted that the joint trial of multiple accused persons was generally appropriate, as it was efficient and in the public interest. The court's decision in this case provides important guidance for future cases involving joint trials of multiple accused persons.

Orders