R -v- WOOD & ANOR [2000] WASC 64

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASC 64
Case No:	INS:154/1999	Heard:	13 MARCH 2000
Coram:	MALCOLM CJ	Delivered:	13/03/00
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application refused
PDF Version

Parties:	THE QUEEN STEVEN BRADLEY WOOD DAMIEN PETER WILLIS
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Application by one of the two co-accused for a separate trial General rule that persons alleged to be involved in joint enterprise should be tried together Admissibility of statement made by one accused about his co-accused in video interview Potential prejudice of statement by co-accused Any prejudice could be cured by an appropriate direction to the jury
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Attorney-General's Reference No 1 (1977) 79 WAR 45 Cookson (1989) 45 A Crim R 121 DPP v Merriman [1973] AC 584 R v Annakin (1988) 37 A Crim R 131 R v Atkinson (1706) 1 Salk 382 R v Benfield and Saunders (1760) 2 Burr 980 R v Demirok (1976) 50 ALJR 550 R v Fenwick (1953) 54 SR (NSW) 147 R v Grondkowski, R v Malinowski [1946] KB 369 R v Holley (1969) 53 Cr App R 519 R v Parker [1969] 2 QB 248 R v Rowlands [1972] 1 QB 424 R v Scaramanga [1963] 2 QB 807 R v Short [1928] St R Qd 246 R v Tool [1955] 2 WN (NSW) 338 R v Trafford (1871) 1 B&AD 874 Seiffert v R, unreported, CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990003; 15 January 1999 Sutton v R (1983) 152 CLR 528 Young v R (1789) 3 Term Rep 98 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : R -v- WOOD & ANOR [2000] WASC 64 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ HEARD : 13 MARCH 2000 DELIVERED : 13 MARCH 2000 FILE NO/S : INS 154 of 1999 BETWEEN : THE QUEEN

AND

STEVEN BRADLEY WOOD

DAMIEN PETER WILLIS

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Application by one of the two co-accused for a separate trial - General rule that persons alleged to be involved in joint enterprise should be tried together - Admissibility of statement made by one accused about his co-accused in video interview - Potential prejudice of statement by co-accused - Any prejudice could be cured by an appropriate direction to the jury

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application refused

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

The Crown : Mr B Fiannaca & Mr D T Carlson

The Accused Wood : Ms A G Braddock

The Accused Willis : Mr B J Singleton QC & Ms A E Horrigan

Solicitors:

The Crown : State Director of Public Prosecutions

The Accused Wood : Justine Fisher

The Accused Willis : Andree Horrigan

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

Attorney-General's Reference No 1 (1977) 79 WAR 45
Cookson (1989) 45 A Crim R 121
DPP v Merriman [1973] AC 584
R v Annakin (1988) 37 A Crim R 131
R v Atkinson (1706) 1 Salk 382
R v Benfield and…

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 Wood

Details

AGLC: R v Wood [2000] WASC 64
Case: [2000] WASC 64
Decision Date: 13 MARCH 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Criminal Case against Wood, the applicant, along with a co-accused, was charged with serious criminal offences including conspiracy to murder and armed robbery. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Wood sought a separate trial from his co-accused, arguing that a joint trial could result in prejudice due to potentially inadmissible statements made by the co-accused about Wood during a video interview. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the general principle that co-accused should be tried together could be overridden and whether the potential prejudice from the co-accused's statement could be mitigated by an appropriate direction to the jury.

The court considered the well-established principle that co-accused should generally be tried together to ensure fairness and efficiency in the judicial process. However, it acknowledged the potential for prejudice if a co-accused’s statement implicates the other in a manner that could unfairly influence the jury. The court assessed whether such prejudice could be adequately addressed through jury directions. In this instance, the court concluded that any prejudice arising from the co-accused's statement could be sufficiently mitigated by an appropriate direction from the trial judge, thereby preserving the principle of a joint trial while addressing the risk of prejudice. The application for a separate trial was therefore refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application refused

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.