ROBERTS -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 191

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 191
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:35/2001	Heard:	11 JUNE 2001
Coram:	KENNEDY J STEYTLER J MILLER J	Delivered:	27/06/01
No of pages:	16	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	CLIVE GORDON ROBERTS THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Evidence Sexual offences Recent complaint Whether evidence truly a complaint Whether spontaneous Whether in reply to questions of a leading or suggestive character Whether admissible Relevance of conduct of defence case in relation to complaint
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Kilby v The Queen (1973) 129 CLR 460 R v Freeman [1980] VR 1 R v Gallagher (1986) 41 SASR 73 R v Osborne [1905] 1 KB 551 R v Sakail [1993] 1 Qd R 312 Suresh v The Queen (1998) 72 ALJR 769 Eastough v The Queen [1998] WASCA 53 R v Adams and Ross [1965] Qd R 255 R v Manning (1910) 13 WALR 6 R v Warner (1995) 78 A Crim R 383 Reppas v The Queen (1998) 20 WAR 178

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : ROBERTS -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 191 CORAM : KENNEDY J

STEYTLER J

MILLER J

HEARD : 11 JUNE 2001 DELIVERED : 27 JUNE 2001 FILE NO/S : CCA 35 of 2001 BETWEEN : CLIVE GORDON ROBERTS

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Evidence - Sexual offences - Recent complaint - Whether evidence truly a complaint - Whether spontaneous - Whether in reply to questions of a leading or suggestive character - Whether admissible - Relevance of conduct of defence case in relation to complaint

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr M D Cuerden

Respondent : Mr D Dempster

Solicitors:

Appellant : Hammond Worthington

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Kilby v The Queen (1973) 129 CLR 460
R v Freeman [1980] VR 1
R v Gallagher (1986) 41 SASR 73
R v Osborne [1905] 1 KB 551
R v Sakail [1993] 1 Qd R 312
Suresh v The Queen (1998) 72 ALJR 769

Case(s) also cited:

Eastough v The Queen [1998] WASCA 53
R v Adams and Ross [1965] Qd R 255
R v Manning (1910) 13 WALR 6
R v Warner (1995) 78 A Crim R 383
Reppas v The Queen (1998) 20 WAR 178

(Page 3)

1 KENNEDY J: I have had the benefit of reading in draft the reasons to be published by Miller J, with which I am in agreement. I would therefore dismiss this appeal.

2 STEYTLER J: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for decision proposed to be published by Miller J. I agree, for the reasons given by his Honour, that the appeal should be dismissed.

3 MILLER J: The appellant was convicted in the…

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 [2001] WASCA 191
Case: [2001] WASCA 191
Decision Date: 27 JUNE 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Roberts v The Queen, the appellant, who was convicted of sexual offences, appealed against his conviction to the High Court of Australia. The core issue in the appeal was the admissibility of evidence regarding a complaint made by the complainant. The central question was whether this evidence constituted a complaint, whether it was spontaneous, and if it was made in response to questions that were leading or suggestive. The High Court was tasked with determining these issues to assess the correctness of the lower court's decision on the admissibility of this evidence.

The High Court examined the nature of the evidence in question to determine if it truly represented a complaint. It was crucial to establish whether the statement was made spontaneously and without prompting by questions that could be seen as leading or suggestive. The court considered the conduct of the defence during the case, which included treating the complainant as a hostile witness, as a relevant factor. This conduct was seen as potentially influencing the complainant's statements. The court determined that the evidence was indeed a complaint, spontaneous in nature, and not influenced by leading or suggestive questions.

The court concluded that the evidence was admissible and relevant to the case. The conduct of the defence, while significant, did not render the evidence inadmissible. The High Court found that the lower court had correctly admitted the evidence, and thus the appeal was dismissed. The reasoning and outcome of the court were based on a careful analysis of the evidence and the context in which it was given, ensuring that the principles of fairness and admissibility were upheld in the criminal proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.