SALMON -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 270
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 270 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:282/2000 | 19 JULY 2001 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ KENNEDY J McKECHNIE J | 30/08/01 | |
| 28 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowedConviction quashed | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | BRADLEY SALMON THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Verdict of jury Whether unreasonable Prior inconsistent statements by complainant Other matters affecting credibility Significant possibility innocent person convicted Liberato direction Whether required as a matter of law |
Legislation: | Criminal Code (WA), s 689 |
Case References: | Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439 KRM v The Queen (2001) 75 ALJR 550 Latham v The Queen [2000] WASCA 57 Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 Mickelberg v The Queen [1984] WAR 191 Middleton v The Queen [2000] WASCA 200 Miles v The Queen [2000] WASCA 364 Carden v The Queen (1992) 8 WAR 296 Chidiac v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 432 Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250 Gipp v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 106 Ibbs v The Queen [2001] WASCA 129 Knight v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 495 McComish v The Queen [1998] WASCA 248 Morris v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 454 R v Giam (1999) 104 A Crim R 416 R v Mackay, unreported; CCA SCt of Vic; 9 August 1991 R v Noonan [1998] VSCA 8 R v Ralph and George (1988) 37 A Crim R 202 RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620 State Rail Authority (NSW) v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (In Liq) (1999) 73 ALJR 306 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : SALMON -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 270 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- KENNEDY J
McKECHNIE J
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Verdict of jury - Whether unreasonable - Prior inconsistent statements by complainant - Other matters affecting credibility - Significant possibility innocent person convicted - Liberato direction - Whether required as a matter of law
Legislation:
Criminal Code (WA), s 689
(Page 2)
Result:
Appeal allowed
Conviction quashed
Category: A
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr M T Ritter
Respondent : Ms J A Girdham
Solicitors:
Appellant : Haynes Robinson
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439
KRM v The Queen (2001) 75 ALJR 550
Latham v The Queen [2000] WASCA 57
Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
Mickelberg v The Queen [1984] WAR 191
Middleton v The Queen [2000] WASCA 200
Miles v The Queen [2000] WASCA 364
Case(s) also cited:
Carden v The Queen (1992) 8 WAR 296
Chidiac v The Queen (1991)…
Continue reading Salmon v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Salmon v The Queen [2001] WASCA 270
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 270
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Salmon v The Queen involved the appellant who was convicted by a jury of an offence of sexual intercourse without consent. The Crown's case relied solely on the evidence of the complainant, a young girl, who alleged that the appellant had sexually assaulted her. The appellant appealed against the conviction on several grounds, including the alleged unreasonableness of the jury's verdict, the impact of prior inconsistent statements by the complainant, and other matters affecting her credibility. The appellant also argued that there was a significant possibility that an innocent person had been convicted, warranting a Liberato direction to the jury.
The court was required to determine whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable given the evidence presented. This involved assessing the reliability and credibility of the complainant's evidence, especially in light of prior inconsistent statements she had made. Additionally, the court needed to decide if there were other factors that could have affected the jury's assessment of the evidence, and whether these factors were significant enough to warrant a Liberato direction. The Liberato direction, named after a previous case, requires the jury to consider the possibility that the accused may be innocent if there are substantial grounds to doubt the reliability of the complainant's evidence.
The court found that the jury's verdict was unreasonable given the evidence. The complainant's evidence was fraught with inconsistencies and other factors that significantly undermined her credibility. These factors included her prior inconsistent statements, the lack of corroboration, and the appellant's alibi. The court held that the weight of these factors created a significant possibility that an innocent person had been convicted, and that a Liberato direction should have been given to the jury. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed.
The court was required to determine whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable given the evidence presented. This involved assessing the reliability and credibility of the complainant's evidence, especially in light of prior inconsistent statements she had made. Additionally, the court needed to decide if there were other factors that could have affected the jury's assessment of the evidence, and whether these factors were significant enough to warrant a Liberato direction. The Liberato direction, named after a previous case, requires the jury to consider the possibility that the accused may be innocent if there are substantial grounds to doubt the reliability of the complainant's evidence.
The court found that the jury's verdict was unreasonable given the evidence. The complainant's evidence was fraught with inconsistencies and other factors that significantly undermined her credibility. These factors included her prior inconsistent statements, the lack of corroboration, and the appellant's alibi. The court held that the weight of these factors created a significant possibility that an innocent person had been convicted, and that a Liberato direction should have been given to the jury. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed.
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.