ROBERTS -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 64

Reported Decision:	(2002) 25 WAR 501
Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 64
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:39/2001	Heard:	14 FEBRUARY 2002
Coram:	MALCOLM CJ ANDERSON J STEYTLER J	Delivered:	28/03/02
No of pages:	14	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	FRANCIS GERALD ROBERTS THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Practice Jury trial Difficulty in reaching verdict Jury unable to agree after eight hours Appropriate directions Need to avoid exerting pressure
Legislation:	Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : ROBERTS -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 64 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ

ANDERSON J

STEYTLER J

HEARD : 14 FEBRUARY 2002 DELIVERED : 28 MARCH 2002 FILE NO/S : CCA 39 of 2001

CCA 40 of 2001

BETWEEN : FRANCIS GERALD ROBERTS

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Practice - Jury trial - Difficulty in reaching verdict - Jury unable to agree after eight hours - Appropriate directions - Need to avoid exerting pressure

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal allowed

(Page 2)

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr P G Giudice

Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC

Solicitors:

Appellant : George Giudice

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Black v The Queen (1993) 179 CLR 44
R v Luscher (1976) 1 NSWLR 227
Reg v Creasey (1953) 37 Crim App R 179
Reg v Walhein (1952) 36 Crim App R 167
Reg v Watson [1988] QB 690
Tangye (1997) 92 A Crim R 545

Case(s) also cited:

Deakin v The Queen (1984) 58 ALJR 367
Griffin v The Queen [2001] WASCA 11
Jackson v The Queen [1990] WAR 105
Kenneally v The Queen [1998] WASCA 136
Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; (1999) 195 CLR 665
Mitchell v The Queen [1998] WASCA 334
Peers & Smitheringale [1999] WASCA 295; (1999) 108 A Crim R 573
Peers v The Queen [1999] WASCA 295
Williams v The Queen (1996) 17 WAR 17

(Page 3)

1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: The appellant was presented in the Supreme Court on 19 February last on an indictment containing a single count of wilful murder in which the appellant was charged that on 22 March 2000 at Caversham he wilfully murdered Frank Weston.

2 There was evidence that the deceased had been stabbed a great many times. It was not disputed that there was an encounter between the appellant and the deceased, during which the deceased was stabbed by the appellant. The appellant's case was that he had acted in self-defence in stabbing the deceased once and the additional stab wounds were inflicted when the deceased was in a state of automatism and were inflicted involuntarily. Fifteen witnesses were called for the Crown, including a psychiatrist and a forensic pathologist. The accused gave evidence and called a psychiatrist and a forensic psychologist. At…

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 Roberts v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Roberts v The Queen [2002] WASCA 64
Case: [2002] WASCA 64
Decision Date: 28 MARCH 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Roberts v The Queen, the defendant, Mr Roberts, was on trial in the High Court of Australia for a serious criminal offence. The case centred on whether the trial judge's directions to the jury, who were struggling to reach a verdict after eight hours of deliberation, were appropriate. The issue was whether the judge's instructions might have unduly pressured the jury, which could have compromised the fairness of the trial. The central question was whether the judge should have provided additional guidance or potentially discharged the jury, given their prolonged inability to agree on a verdict.

The court examined whether the judge's directions were adequate in guiding the jury without exerting undue pressure, ensuring the trial's integrity. The High Court considered whether the judge's instructions appropriately balanced the need for the jury to deliberate thoroughly and the potential for coercion. The court emphasised that while it was important for the jury to reach a verdict, it was equally critical that this be achieved without any undue influence or pressure from the judge.

The court concluded that the judge's directions, while well-intentioned, were not sufficient to avoid exerting pressure on the jury, thereby compromising the fairness of the trial. The High Court found that the judge should have more explicitly cautioned the jury against the risk of coercion, or even considered discharging them if the deliberations continued to be unproductive. The court ruled that the appeal was allowed based on this reasoning, leading to the quashing of the conviction.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

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.