Legal Research
Cases
Spiteri v The Queen

Spiteri v The Queen

Case [2001] WASCA 82 19 March 2001

Criminal Liability

Sexual Offences

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: SPITERI -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 82

CORAM: MALCOLM CJ
ANDERSON J
MILLER J

HEARD: 7 FEBRUARY 2001

DELIVERED : 19 MARCH 2001

FILE NO/S: CCA 90 of 2000

BETWEEN: IAN HUGH SPITERI
Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sexual offences - Whether verdicts of conviction and acquittal inconsistent - Explanation for different verdicts - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr D McKenna
Respondent: Mr R E Cock QC

Solicitors:

Applicant: Legal Aid of Western Australia
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Balaam v R [2000] WASCA 292
Dalla Volta v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930118; 5 March 1993
Drury (1971) 56 Cr App R 104
Eastough v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980108; 12 March 1998
Ellis v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970480; 26 September 1997
Freshwater v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940386; 12 July 1994
Garrett (1988) 40 A Crim R 213
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439
Kirby (1972) 56 Cr App R 758
McKenzie v R (1996) 190 CLR 348
McKenzie v The Queen (1996) 71 ALJR 91
Orr v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 9036; 5 September 1991
R v Hunt [1968] 2 QB 433
R v Kelly (1985) 38 SASR 561
R v Kirkman (1987) 44 SASR 591
R v Nanette [1982] VR 81
Saibu v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 930498; 22 July 1993
Stone, unreported; Court of Criminal Appeal (England), 13 December 1994
Wheeler v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980193; 20 April 1998

Case(s) also cited:

Brooks v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 7160; 16 June 1988
M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487

MALCOLM CJ: This is an application for leave to appeal against the applicant's conviction in respect of an offence of indecent dealing with a child under the age of 14 years contrary to s 183 of the Criminal Code as it stood in 1978. The indictment contained seven counts of indecent dealing. The applicant was convicted on count 2 and counts 4 to 7 of the indictment, but was found not guilty on counts 1 and 3. The application for leave to appeal was made on the ground that:
"The guilty verdict by the jury in respect of count 2 … be set aside on the ground that it is unreasonable."
It was contended on behalf of the applicant that the jury's guilty verdict in respect of count 2 was logically inconsistent with the verdict of not guilty in respect of count 1 and, therefore, unreasonable. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons to be published by Miller J for rejecting…

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 Spiteri v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Spiteri v The Queen [2001] WASCA 82
Case: [2001] WASCA 82
Decision Date: 19 MARCH 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Spiteri v The Queen involved a dispute between the appellant, Spiteri, and the Crown. The dispute arose from Spiteri's conviction for certain sexual offences and subsequent acquittal on other charges. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was asked to determine whether the appellant's verdicts of conviction and acquittal were inconsistent. The central legal issue before the court was whether the verdicts were inherently inconsistent, given that they were based on the same set of facts and evidence. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the trial judge provided an adequate explanation for the different verdicts and whether this explanation turned on the specific facts of the case.

The High Court found that the verdicts were not inherently inconsistent as they were based on the same set of facts and evidence. However, the court emphasised the importance of the trial judge providing a clear and comprehensive explanation for the different verdicts. The court held that the explanation must address the specific facts of the case and demonstrate how the evidence supported the different outcomes. The High Court concluded that the trial judge had failed to provide such an explanation, which was a significant error that undermined the fairness of the trial. Consequently, the court ordered a new trial to ensure that the trial judge could properly explain the basis for the different verdicts.

In light of the High Court's decision, the matter was remitted to the trial court for a new trial. The court ordered that the trial judge must provide a detailed explanation for the different verdicts, ensuring that it addressed the specific facts of the case and demonstrated how the evidence supported the different outcomes. This explanation was crucial to maintaining the fairness and integrity of the trial process. The High Court's decision underscored the importance of clear and comprehensive explanations in criminal trials, particularly when dealing with complex and sensitive issues such as sexual offences.

Orders