RIPPINGALE -v- R [1999] WASCA 257
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [1999] WASCA 257 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | 15/11/1999 | ||
| Case No: | CCA:148/1999 | 21 JULY 1999 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ IPP J WALLWORK J | 21/07/99 | |
| 17 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowedConviction quashed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MICHAEL FRANCIS RIPPINGALE THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Appeal Conviction Possession of cannabis with intent Plea of guilty Whether offence under s 6(1)(a) or s 7(1)(a) of Act Indictment ambiguous Uncertainty as to offence of which appellant convicted |
Legislation: | Criminal Code (WA) Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 |
Case References: | Chew v The Queen (1991) 4 WAR 21 John L Pty Ltd v Attorney General (NSW) (1987) 163 CLR 508 Kailis v R [1999] WASCA 29 Palmer v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980335; 18 June 1998 R v Ayers [1984] 1 AER 619 Rex v Jones & Ors; ex parte Thomas [1921] 1 KB 632 S v The Queen (1989) 169 CLR 266 The King v Surrey Justices [1932] 1 KB 450 Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621 Fazari v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960651; 14 November 1996 Gilbert v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 920164; 27 March 1992 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Kennedy v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980145; 3 April 1998 Pizzata v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930596; 29 October 1993 Poole v R [1999] WASCA 46 R v Cobby, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 4863; 19 April 1983 R v GP (1997) 18 WAR 196 R v Jankovic (1995) 81 A Crim R 14 R v Langridge (1996) 17 WAR 346; (1996) 87 A Crim R 1 R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394; (1997) 97 A Crim R 400 R v Loughnan, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 4966; 23 June 1983 R v Marchesano (1992) 61 A Crim R 372 R v Papworth (1988) 36 A Crim R 24 R v Phillips, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 5038; 19 August 1983 R v Stafford (1997) 97 A Crim R 85 R v Stol (1989) 44 A Crim R 137 R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386 R v Yanko, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960030; 23 January 1996 Veen (No 1) v The Queen (1979) 143 CLR 458 Verschuren v R (1996) 17 WAR 467 Weng Keong Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : RIPPINGALE -v- R [1999] WASCA 257 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- IPP J
WALLWORK J
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law -…
Continue reading Rippingale v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Rippingale v R [1999] WASCA 257
- Case
- [1999] WASCA 257
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal before the court involved the respondent, the Crown, and the appellant, who was convicted of possession of cannabis with intent to supply. The appellant had entered a guilty plea to the charge. The central issue before the court was whether the appellant was properly convicted under section 6(1)(a) or section 7(1)(a) of the relevant Act. The ambiguity in the indictment led to uncertainty about the specific offence for which the appellant was convicted. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate legal framework under which the conviction should be assessed.
The court examined the nature of the charge and the wording of the indictment. It held that the indictment was ambiguous as it did not clearly specify whether the appellant was charged under section 6(1)(a) or section 7(1)(a) of the Act. This ambiguity created a significant uncertainty regarding the specific offence for which the appellant was convicted. The court found that the indictment's lack of clarity meant that the appellant could not be certain of the charge against him, which was a fundamental requirement for a valid conviction. Consequently, the court concluded that the conviction was flawed due to this ambiguity.
The court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction. The ambiguity in the indictment resulted in an uncertainty as to the specific offence, leading to a flawed conviction. The court's decision emphasised the importance of clear and precise wording in indictments to ensure that defendants are fully aware of the charges against them. This ruling underscores the necessity for legal clarity in criminal proceedings to uphold the principles of justice.
The court examined the nature of the charge and the wording of the indictment. It held that the indictment was ambiguous as it did not clearly specify whether the appellant was charged under section 6(1)(a) or section 7(1)(a) of the Act. This ambiguity created a significant uncertainty regarding the specific offence for which the appellant was convicted. The court found that the indictment's lack of clarity meant that the appellant could not be certain of the charge against him, which was a fundamental requirement for a valid conviction. Consequently, the court concluded that the conviction was flawed due to this ambiguity.
The court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction. The ambiguity in the indictment resulted in an uncertainty as to the specific offence, leading to a flawed conviction. The court's decision emphasised the importance of clear and precise wording in indictments to ensure that defendants are fully aware of the charges against them. This ruling underscores the necessity for legal clarity in criminal proceedings to uphold the principles of justice.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowedConviction 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.