Schokker v The Queen

Case [2001] WASCA 84

SCHOKKER -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 84



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2001] WASCA 84
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:CCA:57/20004 SEPTEMBER 2000
Coram:PIDGEON J
WALLWORK J
PARKER J		19/03/01
47Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: For each applicant:
Leave to appeal against conviction granted
Appeal against conviction dismissed
Leave to appeal against sentence refused
PDF Version
Parties:JACQUELINE MARY SCHOKKER
THE QUEEN
HANK BERNARD SCHOKKER

Catchwords:
Criminal law
Gaining Pecuniary Benefit by fraud
Separate trial of accused refused
Separate trial of charges refused
Whether leading questions allowed
Whether evidence capable of supporting convictions
Whether verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory
No new principles

Legislation:
Nil

Case References:
Beck & Smith v R [1984] WAR 127
Carden v The Queen (1992) 8 WAR 296
De Jesus v R (1986) 68 ALR 1
Director of Public Prosecutions v Boardman [1975] AC 421
Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555
Driscoll v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 517
Guilbert v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970450; 13 August 1997
Hoch v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 292
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Ludlow v R [1971] AC 29
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
R v Grail (1944) 30 Crim App Rep 81
R v Laverty [1970] 3 All ER 432
R v Saunders (1985) 15 A Crim R 115
Seiler v R [1978] WAR 27
Sutton v R (1984) 152 CLR 528
Webb v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 41
Ahern v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 87
Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564
Allan (1965) 1 QB 130
Anetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596
Armitage v The Queen [2000] WASCA 197
Balcombe v De Simoni (1972) 126 CLR 576
Barton v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR
Brennan v The King (1936) 55 CLR 253
Butera v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) (1987) 164 CLR 180
Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521
Chidiac v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 432
Cleland v The Queen (1982) 151 CLR 1
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193
Giorganni v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 473
Harriman v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 590
HG v R (1999) 160 ALR 554
Jarvis v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930341; 14 June 1993
K v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980276; 22 May 1998
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
Markby v The Queen (1978) 140 CLR 108
Mickelberg v The Queen (No 2) (1989) 4 WAR 497
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Morris v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 454
Olbey v The Queen (1980) 1 SCR 1008
Perry v The Queen (1982) 150 CLR 580
Pfenning v The Queen (1995) 127 ALR 99
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v Beck [1990] 1 Qd R 30
R v Charles (1976)…

Continue reading Schokker v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Schokker v The Queen [2001] WASCA 84
Case
[2001] WASCA 84
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the respondents were convicted of conspiracy to defraud and defrauding the Commonwealth. The respondents applied to the High Court of Australia for leave to appeal against their convictions and sentences. The primary legal issues were whether the trial judge erred in allowing leading questions to be put to witnesses, whether the evidence was capable of supporting the convictions, and whether the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory. Additionally, the respondents sought to argue that the trial judge should have ordered a separate trial of the charges against them, but the court found that there were no new principles to be considered in this regard.

The High Court of Australia found that the trial judge did not err in allowing leading questions to be put to witnesses, as this was within the judge's discretion. The court also found that the evidence was capable of supporting the convictions, as there was sufficient evidence to establish the conspiracy and the fraudulent acts. The court further found that the verdicts were not unsafe and unsatisfactory, as the jury was properly directed and there were no irregularities in the trial. The court also found that there was no need for a separate trial of the charges, as there was no risk of prejudice to the respondents.

The High Court of Australia granted leave to appeal against conviction but dismissed the appeal against conviction. The court also refused leave to appeal against sentence. The court found that there were no grounds for appeal and that the convictions and sentences were properly imposed. The court found that the trial judge had not erred in any way and that the verdicts were just and proper.

In summary, the High Court of Australia found that the trial judge did not err in allowing leading questions, that the evidence was capable of supporting the convictions, and that the verdicts were not unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court also found that there was no need for a separate trial of the charges. The High Court of Australia granted leave to appeal against conviction but dismissed the appeal against conviction. The court also refused leave to appeal against sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

For each applicant:

Leave to appeal against conviction granted

Appeal against conviction dismissed

Leave to appeal against sentence refused

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.