SEKYERE-BOAKYE -v- WHITNEY [2013] WASC 147
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2013] WASC 147 | |
| 24/04/2013 | |||
| Case No: | SJA:1124/2012 | 17 APRIL 2013 | |
| Coram: | HALL J | 17/04/13 | |
| 13 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal granted Appeal allowed Conviction set aside and retrial ordered | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | NINO SEKYERE-BOAKYE ADAM BOYD WHITNEY |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Appeal against conviction Refusal to grant an adjournment Whether discretion properly exercised Failure to take into account a relevant consideration Failure to consider prejudice to the accused in refusing an adjournment |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Bennett v Councillor [2001] WASCA 342 Greer (1992) 62 A Crim R 442 Lasscock v Seidner [2013] WASC 94 Leary v The Queen [1975] WAR 133 Lewis v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2008] WASCA 155; (2008) 37 WAR 483 Lyster v Kemp [2010] WASC 47 Manonai v Burns [2011] WASCA 165 Minister for Immigration and Multi-Cultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] HCA 11; (2002) 209 CLR 497 Myers v Myers [1969] WAR 19 Pallett v Paul [2007] WASC 290 Saad v Barron [2012] WASC 507 The Queen v Jones [1971] VR 72 The Queen v McGill [1967] VR 683 The State of Western Australia v Sillich [2011] WASCA 135 Touma v Saparas [2000] NSWCA 11 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Appellant
AND
ADAM BOYD WHITNEY
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE B A LANE
File No : PE 30805 of 2012
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Refusal to grant an adjournment - Whether discretion properly exercised - Failure to take into account a relevant consideration - Failure to consider prejudice to the accused in refusing an adjournment
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
Conviction set aside and retrial ordered
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : Ms S J K Teoh
Solicitors:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Bennett v Councillor [2001] WASCA 342
Greer (1992) 62 A Crim R 442
Lasscock v Seidner [2013] WASC 94
Leary v The Queen [1975] WAR 133
Lewis v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2008] WASCA 155; (2008) 37 WAR 483
Lyster v Kemp [2010] WASC 47
Manonai v Burns [2011] WASCA 165
Minister for Immigration and Multi-Cultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] HCA 11; (2002) 209 CLR 497
Myers v Myers [1969] WAR 19
Pallett v Paul [2007] WASC 290
Saad v Barron [2012] WASC 507
The Queen v Jones [1971] VR 72
(Page 3)
The Queen v McGill [1967] VR 683
The State of Western Australia v Sillich [2011] WASCA 135
Touma…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Sekyere-Boakye v Whitney and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2013] WASC 147
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Sekyere-Boakye versus Whitney, the appellant, who was the defendant in the original proceedings, sought to appeal against his conviction for a criminal offence. The appeal centred on the trial judge's refusal to grant an adjournment of the trial. The case was heard and determined by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria.
The primary legal issue that the Court of Appeal needed to address was whether the trial judge had exercised their discretion to refuse an adjournment appropriately. Specifically, the appellant argued that the trial judge had failed to consider several relevant factors, including the potential prejudice to the accused if the adjournment was not granted. The appellant contended that the trial judge's refusal to adjourn the trial was an error of law that warranted the setting aside of the conviction and ordering a retrial.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had indeed erred in the exercise of their discretion. The court held that the trial judge had not taken into account all relevant considerations, particularly the potential prejudice to the accused if the adjournment was not granted. The Court of Appeal concluded that this failure constituted a significant error, impacting the fairness of the trial and the accuracy of the verdict. As a result, the Court of Appeal granted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered a retrial.
The primary legal issue that the Court of Appeal needed to address was whether the trial judge had exercised their discretion to refuse an adjournment appropriately. Specifically, the appellant argued that the trial judge had failed to consider several relevant factors, including the potential prejudice to the accused if the adjournment was not granted. The appellant contended that the trial judge's refusal to adjourn the trial was an error of law that warranted the setting aside of the conviction and ordering a retrial.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had indeed erred in the exercise of their discretion. The court held that the trial judge had not taken into account all relevant considerations, particularly the potential prejudice to the accused if the adjournment was not granted. The Court of Appeal concluded that this failure constituted a significant error, impacting the fairness of the trial and the accuracy of the verdict. As a result, the Court of Appeal granted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered a retrial.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
Conviction set aside and retrial ordered
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.