STACK -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 338
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2002] WASCA 338 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | 10/12/2002 | ||
| Case No: | CCA:150/2002 | 1 NOVEMBER 2002 | |
| Coram: | TEMPLEMAN J MCKECHNIE J MCLURE J | 1/11/02 | |
| 15 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal granted Appeal allowed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : STACK -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 338 CORAM : TEMPLEMAN J
- MCKECHNIE J
MCLURE J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal procedure - Application for leave to appeal out of time - Appeal against conviction - Murder - Unlawful wounding - Directions to jury - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA), s 249, s 23, s 248
(Page 2)
Result:
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr R W Richardson
Respondent : Mr D Dempster
Solicitors:
Applicant : Aboriginal Legal Service
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Liberato v The Queen (1985) 195 CLR 507
Murray v The Queen (2002) 76 ALJR 899
Case(s) also cited:
Azzadin v The Queen [1999] WASCA 265
Fletcher v The Queen [1999] WASCA 18
Gavin v The Queen (1992) 6 WAR 195
Leary v The Queen [1975] WAR 133
Marwey v The Queen (1997) 138…
Continue reading Stack v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Stack v The Queen [2002] WASCA 338
- Case
- [2002] WASCA 338
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Stack v The Queen, the applicant sought leave to appeal out of time against his conviction for murder and unlawful wounding. The applicant argued that the trial judge had given inadequate directions to the jury regarding the application of the defence of self-defence. The application was heard in the High Court of Australia.
The legal issues before the court included whether the applicant had made a sufficient case for leave to appeal out of time, and if so, whether the trial judge had erred in giving inadequate directions to the jury. The court considered the principles of criminal procedure and the criteria for granting leave to appeal out of time, as well as the specific circumstances of the case.
The court found that the applicant had made a sufficient case for leave to appeal out of time. The court held that the trial judge had indeed erred in giving inadequate directions to the jury regarding the application of the defence of self-defence. The court held that this error was not merely a minor irregularity but had the potential to affect the outcome of the trial. The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and ordering a new trial.
The court's final orders were that leave to appeal was granted, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside. The matter was remitted to the trial court for a new trial.
The legal issues before the court included whether the applicant had made a sufficient case for leave to appeal out of time, and if so, whether the trial judge had erred in giving inadequate directions to the jury. The court considered the principles of criminal procedure and the criteria for granting leave to appeal out of time, as well as the specific circumstances of the case.
The court found that the applicant had made a sufficient case for leave to appeal out of time. The court held that the trial judge had indeed erred in giving inadequate directions to the jury regarding the application of the defence of self-defence. The court held that this error was not merely a minor irregularity but had the potential to affect the outcome of the trial. The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and ordering a new trial.
The court's final orders were that leave to appeal was granted, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside. The matter was remitted to the trial court for a new trial.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
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.