STEVENSON -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 222
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 222 | |
| Case No: | CCA:194/1999 | 14 MARCH 2000 | |
| Coram: | KENNEDY J PIDGEON J WALLWORK J | 23/08/00 | |
| 16 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | JOSEPH GEORGE STEVENSON THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Jury Verdict Unanimous verdicts taken from jury on two counts Subsequent taking of majority verdict Whether requirement for all verdicts to be taken at same time Whether verdicts properly taken Criminal law and procedure Evidence Sexual offences Relationship evidence Admissibility |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Hardingham v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 940105C; 3 March 1994 R v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592 R v J W Thornton (1989) 89 Cr App R 54 R v Witham (1962) Qd R 49 B v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 599 Biggs v DPP (1997) 95 A Crim R 349 Black v The Queen (1993) 179 CLR 44 BRS v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275 Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427 Cunningham v Ryan (1919) 27 CLR 294 Gipp v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 106 Griffiths v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 293 Harriman v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 590 Kailis v The Queen (1999) 21 WAR 100 Nanan v The State [1986] AC 860 Pearmine v The Queen [1988] WAR 315 Peers v The Queen [1999] WASCA 295 Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461 R v AH (1997) 98 A Crim R 71 R v Cefia (1979) 21 SASR 171 R v Eyers (1978) 19 SASR 244 R v F (1994) Crim LR 377 R v Fordham (1997) 98 A Crim R 359 R v Tektonopoulos (1999) 106 A Crim R 111 Rusovan v The Queen (1994) 62 SASR 86 Scaffidi v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970166; 18 April 1997 Varney v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960463; 23 August 1996 Wilson v The Queen (1970) 123 CLR 334 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : STEVENSON -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 222 CORAM : KENNEDY J
- PIDGEON J
WALLWORK J
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Jury - Verdict - Unanimous verdicts taken from jury on two counts - Subsequent taking of majority verdict - Whether requirement for all verdicts to be taken at same time - Whether verdicts properly taken
Criminal law and procedure - Evidence - Sexual offences - Relationship evidence - Admissibility
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Appeal dismissed
(Page 2)
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr R E Lindsay & Ms B J O'Sullivan
Respondent : Mr K P Bates & Mr A S Derrick
Solicitors:
Appellant : Halperin Fleming Meertens
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in…
Continue reading Stevenson v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Stevenson v The Queen [2000] WASCA 222
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 222
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Stevenson v The Queen involved the appellant, who was convicted of sexual offences, appealing against the verdicts rendered by the jury. The Supreme Court of Victoria heard the appeal, with the Court of Appeal delivering the judgment. The appellant argued that the trial judge had erred in accepting verdicts on two counts after a jury had already taken a unanimous verdict on a third count, and in subsequently taking a majority verdict on a further count. The appellant further argued that evidence concerning his relationship with the victim was inadmissible.
The Court of Appeal examined whether the requirement for all verdicts to be taken at the same time applied and whether the verdicts were properly taken. The court found that the trial judge had not erred in taking verdicts at different times, as there was no statutory requirement for all verdicts to be taken simultaneously. Additionally, the court held that the verdicts were properly taken, as the appellant had not objected to the process at the time. Regarding the admissibility of relationship evidence, the court determined that such evidence was relevant and admissible to show the context and nature of the alleged offences.
In conclusion, the Court of Appeal found no merit in the appellant's arguments and dismissed the appeal. The trial judge's handling of the verdicts and the admissibility of relationship evidence were upheld, affirming the appellant's convictions.
The Court of Appeal examined whether the requirement for all verdicts to be taken at the same time applied and whether the verdicts were properly taken. The court found that the trial judge had not erred in taking verdicts at different times, as there was no statutory requirement for all verdicts to be taken simultaneously. Additionally, the court held that the verdicts were properly taken, as the appellant had not objected to the process at the time. Regarding the admissibility of relationship evidence, the court determined that such evidence was relevant and admissible to show the context and nature of the alleged offences.
In conclusion, the Court of Appeal found no merit in the appellant's arguments and dismissed the appeal. The trial judge's handling of the verdicts and the admissibility of relationship evidence were upheld, affirming the appellant's convictions.
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.