STANTON -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 189
| (2001) 24 WAR 233 | |||
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 189 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:213/2000 | 20 APRIL 2001 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ MURRAY J OWEN J | 22/06/01 | |
| 31 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | KENNETH FRANCIS STANTON THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Indictment for wilful murder Verdicts open on such an indictment Whether there is a particular order in which the verdicts must be considered |
Legislation: | Criminal Code (WA) Juries Act 1957 (WA) |
Case References: | Beavan v The Queen (1954) 92 CLR 660 Black v The Queen (1993) 179 CLR 44 Brown v The Queen (1913) 17 CLR 570 Falconer v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 30 Gammage v The Queen (1969) 122 CLR 444 Garrett v The Queen [1999] WASCA 169 Gilson v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 353 Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500 Jemielita v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950348; 27 July 1995 Johns v The Queen (1979) 141 CLR 409 MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348 McCready v The Queen [1967] VR 325 Nolan v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970260; 22 May 1997 Packett v The Queen (1937) 58 CLR 190 Perkins v The Queen [1983] WAR 184 R v Dodd [1960] WAR 42 R v Shipley (1784) 4 Doug 171 R v Watson [1988] 1 QB 690 Smith v The King [1932] 35 WALR 1 Smith v The Queen (1992) 7 WAR 526 Ward v The Queen [2000] WASCA 413 Wilde v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 365 Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : STANTON -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 189 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- MURRAY J
OWEN J
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Indictment for wilful murder - Verdicts open on such an indictment - Whether there is a particular order in which the verdicts must be considered
Legislation:
Criminal Code (WA)
Juries Act 1957 (WA)
Result:
Appeal dismissed
(Page 2)
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Ms J G Fordham
Respondent : Mr J Mactaggart
Solicitors:
Appellant : Leonard Cohen & Co
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Beavan v The Queen (1954) 92 CLR 660
Black v The Queen (1993) 179 CLR 44
Brown v The Queen (1913) 17 CLR 570
Falconer v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 30
Gammage v The Queen (1969) 122 CLR 444
Garrett v The Queen [1999] WASCA 169
Gilson v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 353
Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500
Jemielita v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950348;
27 July 1995
Johns…
Continue reading Stanton v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Stanton v R [2001] WASCA 189
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 189
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Stanton v R, the defendant was convicted of wilful murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The central issue in the appeal was whether the trial judge had erred in the order in which the verdicts were considered during the trial. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the trial judge had to consider the verdicts in a specific order or if the judge had the discretion to decide the order in which the verdicts were considered.
The court examined the legal principles surrounding the consideration of verdicts in criminal trials. The court noted that the common law does not prescribe a particular order in which verdicts must be considered. The decision on the order of verdicts lies within the discretion of the trial judge. The court further held that the trial judge's discretion in determining the order of verdicts was exercised lawfully in this instance. The court emphasised that the trial judge's decision did not lead to any miscarriage of justice or unfairness to the defendant. The High Court concluded that the trial judge's discretion in determining the order of verdicts was not abused.
The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence. The judges found that the trial judge had acted within their discretion and that there was no error in the procedure that would warrant overturning the conviction. The appeal was thus dismissed, and the defendant's conviction for wilful murder and the sentence of life imprisonment were affirmed.
The court examined the legal principles surrounding the consideration of verdicts in criminal trials. The court noted that the common law does not prescribe a particular order in which verdicts must be considered. The decision on the order of verdicts lies within the discretion of the trial judge. The court further held that the trial judge's discretion in determining the order of verdicts was exercised lawfully in this instance. The court emphasised that the trial judge's decision did not lead to any miscarriage of justice or unfairness to the defendant. The High Court concluded that the trial judge's discretion in determining the order of verdicts was not abused.
The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence. The judges found that the trial judge had acted within their discretion and that there was no error in the procedure that would warrant overturning the conviction. The appeal was thus dismissed, and the defendant's conviction for wilful murder and the sentence of life imprisonment were affirmed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
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.