SLATER -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 151
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2004] WASCA 151 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | 26/07/2004 | ||
| Case No: | CCA:46/2003 | 22 MARCH 2004 | |
| Coram: | STEYTLER J WHEELER J EM HEENAN J | 9/06/04 | |
| 45 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed, Convictions quashed, Retrial ordered | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | IVAN SLATER THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Appeal against conviction Application for new trial on the grounds of the discovery of fresh evidence Conviction for indecent dealing without consent of a child between the age of 13 and 16 years Admissibility of evidence of supply of liquor to juveniles on other occasions Admissibility of evidence to prove that accused lied to police in videotaped record of interview Extent to which exculpatory statements made to police in videotaped record of interview on collateral issues justify the prosecution to tender evidence to refute explanations then made Prejudicial effect of evidence compared with probative value Test for grant of new trial in the light of fresh evidence |
Legislation: | Criminal Code, s 321 |
Case References: | Allied Interstate (Qld) Pty Ltd v Barnes (1968) 118 CLR 581 Button v The Queen (2002) 25 WAR 382 Day v Dyson [1965] VR 165 Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193 Gallagher v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 392 Harriman v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 590 Healy v The Queen (1995) 15 WAR 104 Hills v Sklivas [1995] 1 VR 599 Jaensch v The Queen [2000] WASCA 212 Mallard v The Queen [2003] WASCA 296 Mawaz Khan v The Queen [1967] 1 AC 454 Middleton v The Queen (1998) 19 WAR 179 Milton v The Queen [2000] WASCA 25 Mule v The Queen [2004] WASCA 7 Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461 Piddington v Bennett and Wood Pty Ltd (1940) 63 CLR 533 Pollitt v The Queen (1992) 174 CLR 558 R v Beck [1990] 1 Qd R 30 R v Bridgman (1980) 24 SASR 278 R v Chin (1985) 157 CLR 671 R v Gay [1976] VR 577 R v Hall [1952] 1 KB 302 R v Sharp (1988) 86 Cr App Rep 274 Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965 Sutton v The Queen (1984) 152 CLR 528 Walton v The Queen (1989) 166 CLR 283 Willis v The Queen (2001) 25 WAR 217 Wimpoale v McIlwraith [1923] VLR 553 Casey v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950064; 22 February 1995 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : SLATER -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 151 CORAM : STEYTLER J
- WHEELER J
EM HEENAN J
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : H H JACKSON DCJ
File Number :
Continue reading Slater v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Slater v The Queen [2004] WASCA 151
- Case
- [2004] WASCA 151
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Slater v The Queen involved the appellant appealing against his conviction for indecent dealing without consent with a child between the ages of 13 and 16 years. The trial judge had ruled that evidence of the supply of liquor to juveniles on other occasions was not admissible. The appellant also challenged the admissibility of evidence to prove that he had lied to police during his videotaped interview, as well as the extent to which exculpatory statements he made during the interview on collateral issues justified the prosecution tendering evidence to refute the explanations he provided. The High Court of Australia considered the appeal and determined the legal issues concerning the admissibility of evidence and the prejudicial effect of such evidence compared with its probative value.
The central legal issues before the court were whether the evidence of the supply of liquor to juveniles was relevant and admissible, and whether the evidence of the appellant's alleged lies to police and the exculpatory statements made in his videotaped interview could be used to refute his explanations. The court examined the principles governing the admissibility of evidence and the balancing test required when considering the prejudicial effect of such evidence against its probative value. The court also considered the appropriate test for granting a new trial in light of fresh evidence and whether the trial judge had erred in excluding the evidence in question.
The court found that the trial judge had erred in excluding the evidence of the supply of liquor to juveniles on other occasions, as it was relevant to the appellant's propensity to engage in unlawful conduct with minors. The court also held that the evidence of the appellant's alleged lies and exculpatory statements could be used to refute his explanations, as they were relevant to his credibility and the truthfulness of his account. The court concluded that the prejudicial effect of this evidence did not outweigh its probative value. Finally, the court determined that the trial judge's error in excluding the evidence warranted the grant of a new trial. The appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and a retrial was ordered.
The central legal issues before the court were whether the evidence of the supply of liquor to juveniles was relevant and admissible, and whether the evidence of the appellant's alleged lies to police and the exculpatory statements made in his videotaped interview could be used to refute his explanations. The court examined the principles governing the admissibility of evidence and the balancing test required when considering the prejudicial effect of such evidence against its probative value. The court also considered the appropriate test for granting a new trial in light of fresh evidence and whether the trial judge had erred in excluding the evidence in question.
The court found that the trial judge had erred in excluding the evidence of the supply of liquor to juveniles on other occasions, as it was relevant to the appellant's propensity to engage in unlawful conduct with minors. The court also held that the evidence of the appellant's alleged lies and exculpatory statements could be used to refute his explanations, as they were relevant to his credibility and the truthfulness of his account. The court concluded that the prejudicial effect of this evidence did not outweigh its probative value. Finally, the court determined that the trial judge's error in excluding the evidence warranted the grant of a new trial. The appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and a retrial was ordered.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed, Convictions quashed, 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.