RAWCLIFFE -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 239
| (2000) 22 WAR 490 | |||
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 239 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:76/2000 | 17 JULY 2000 | |
| Coram: | KENNEDY ACJ PIDGEON J MILLER J | 31/08/00 | |
| 28 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal against conviction dismissed Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MICHAEL DAVID RAWCLIFFE THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Application for stay Whether abuse of process on part of the Crown Order for separate trials Prior trial of co-accused Co-accused claiming that accused had sought to have him take responsibility for possession of methylamphetamine Crown challenging credibility of co-accused on his trial Co-accused acquitted and subsequently giving similar evidence for the Crown in the trial of the accused on the basis that he was a credible witness Responsibilities of counsel for the Crown Criminal law and procedure Evidence Cross-examination by counsel for accused of father of accused who was called as a Crown witness Cross-examined by accused's counsel on matters not raised in examination-in-chief Bias in favour of son Whether Judge has discretion to give counsel for the Crown leave to ask leading questions in re-examination Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Refusal of trial Judge to order parole Whether Judge erred in refusing order |
Legislation: | Evidence Act 1906, s 20, s 21, s 22 Sentencing Act 1995, s 89(2) |
Case References: | Bastin v Carew (1824) Ry & Mood 126; 171 ER 966 Clarke v Saffery (1824) Ry & Mood 126 at 126; 171 ER 966 at 966 Cushing v R [1977] WAR 7 Darwell (1997) 94 A Crim R 35 Gordon v Carroll (1975) 6 ALR 579 Ireland v Taylor [1949] 1 KB 300 Lowndes (1997) 95 A Crim R 516 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 McClure v Mitchell (1974) 6 ALR 471 Mooney v James [1949] VLR 22 Parkin v Moon (1835) 7 C&P 408 at 409; 173 ER 181 at 181 - 182 Price v Manning (1889) 42 Ch D 372 R v Apostolides (1984) 154 CLR 563 R v Chapman (1838) 8 C&P 558 at 559; 173 ER 617 at 617 R v Harman [1985] Crim LR 326 R v Murphy (1837) 8 C&P 297, at 306; 173 ER 502, at 507 R v Neal, Regos & Morgan [1947] ALR 616 R v Thynne [1977] VR 98 Rogers v R (1994) 181 CLR 251 Tedeschi v Singh [1948] WN 134 Thompson v R (1992) 8 WAR 387 Thompson v The Queen (1992) 8 WAR 387 Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378 Armstrong v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980231; 21 April 1998 R v Bellissimo (1996) 84 A Crim R 465 Cardillo v Taylor [1999] WASCA 166 Dobaj v The Queen [2000] WASCA 7 Forbes v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950226; 20 February 1995 Histon v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA;… |
Continue reading Rawcliffe v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Rawcliffe v The Queen [2000] WASCA 239
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 239
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Rawcliffe v The Queen, the appellant faced charges of drug possession and supply, and the case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant, having been acquitted in a prior trial, argued that the Crown had abused the process by challenging the credibility of the co-accused who testified against him, and then using that same co-accused as a credible witness in the appellant's trial. The appellant further argued that the Crown's counsel acted inappropriately by permitting the co-accused to give evidence without properly cross-examining him, and that the trial judge should have allowed the Crown to ask leading questions during re-examination.
The legal issues that the court had to address were whether the Crown's conduct amounted to an abuse of process, and whether the trial judge erred in not allowing leading questions during re-examination. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge had erred in refusing to order parole at sentencing. The court considered the conduct of the Crown's counsel, the nature of the evidence presented, and the discretion of the trial judge in sentencing.
The High Court found that there was no abuse of process by the Crown, as the co-accused's testimony was deemed credible and relevant to the appellant's case. The court also ruled that the trial judge did not err in refusing to allow leading questions during re-examination, as the purpose of cross-examination is to test the witness's credibility, which had already been achieved. Furthermore, the court held that the trial judge's refusal to order parole was within his discretion and did not constitute an error.
The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. The court's decision confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial judge.
The legal issues that the court had to address were whether the Crown's conduct amounted to an abuse of process, and whether the trial judge erred in not allowing leading questions during re-examination. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge had erred in refusing to order parole at sentencing. The court considered the conduct of the Crown's counsel, the nature of the evidence presented, and the discretion of the trial judge in sentencing.
The High Court found that there was no abuse of process by the Crown, as the co-accused's testimony was deemed credible and relevant to the appellant's case. The court also ruled that the trial judge did not err in refusing to allow leading questions during re-examination, as the purpose of cross-examination is to test the witness's credibility, which had already been achieved. Furthermore, the court held that the trial judge's refusal to order parole was within his discretion and did not constitute an error.
The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. The court's decision confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial judge.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal against conviction dismissed
Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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.