RILEY -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 92

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2004] WASCA 92
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:54/2003	Heard:	3 MAY 2004
Coram:	MALCOLM CJ MURRAY J WHEELER J	Delivered:	3/05/04
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed, Conviction quashed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	PERCY JAMES RILEY THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Assault occasioning bodily harm Appellant alleged to be an aider in commission of offence No direction as to knowledge required Verdict unreasonable
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Ward v R (1997) 19 WAR 68 R v Beck (1990) 1 QdR 30 O (A Child) v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970219; 9 April 1997 Avis v The Queen (2002) WASCA 250

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : RILEY -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 92 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ

MURRAY J

WHEELER J

HEARD : 3 MAY 2004 DELIVERED : 3 MAY 2004 FILE NO/S : CCA 54 of 2003 BETWEEN : PERCY JAMES RILEY

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : VIOL DCJ

File Number : BUN 58 of 2002

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Assault occasioning bodily harm - Appellant alleged to be an aider in commission of offence - No direction as to knowledge required - Verdict unreasonable

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal allowed

Conviction quashed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr C L J Miocevich

Respondent : Mr D Dempster

Solicitors:

Applicant : Aboriginal Legal Service

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Ward v R (1997) 19 WAR 68

Case(s) also cited:

R v Beck (1990) 1 QdR 30
O (A Child) v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970219; 9 April 1997
Avis v The Queen (2002) WASCA 250

(Page 3)

1 MALCOLM CJ: I would ask Murray J to give the first judgment in relation to this matter.

2 MURRAY J: This is an appeal against conviction. The indictment contained a number of charges upon which the appellant and one Bert Junior Riley were presented before the District Court in Bunbury for trial. So far as the appellant is concerned, two counts affected him. They both related to an incident which occurred on 26 February 2002. The charges were that Bert Junior Riley and the appellant committed an offence of burglary upon the house of a Mr Miles, in company, armed with a tyre lever, and the house being one ordinarily used for human habitation. Both men were convicted of that offence and the present appeal, so far as it is now pursued, does not relate to that conviction sustained by the appellant. An additional offence was charged against the two men jointly that Mr Miles was assaulted and caused bodily harm. It is in relation to that conviction, sustained by both men,…

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 Riley v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Riley v The Queen [2004] WASCA 92
Case: [2004] WASCA 92
Decision Date: 3 MAY 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Riley v The Queen involved an appeal against the appellant's conviction for being an aider and abettor in the commission of an assault occasioning bodily harm. The appellant was convicted by a jury and sentenced to imprisonment. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with reviewing the appellant's challenge to the conviction on the basis that the trial judge did not properly direct the jury on the issue of the appellant's knowledge of the assault.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge's failure to properly direct the jury regarding the appellant's knowledge of the assault constituted a miscarriage of justice. The appellant argued that the jury should have been directed to consider whether the appellant had the requisite knowledge of the assault before they could find the appellant guilty of being an aider and abettor. The Crown contended that the trial judge's direction was sufficient, as the jury was adequately informed that they needed to consider whether the appellant intended to aid and abet the offence, without needing a specific direction on the knowledge requirement.

The court held that the trial judge's direction was inadequate because it did not require the jury to consider whether the appellant had the necessary knowledge of the assault. The court found that the appellant's knowledge was an essential element of the offence of aiding and abetting, and the failure to direct the jury on this point could lead to a miscarriage of justice. The court concluded that the verdict was unreasonable and quashed the appellant's conviction. Given this finding, the court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed, Conviction quashed

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.