STRICKLAND -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 79
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 79 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:180/1999 | 10 MARCH 2000 | |
| Coram: | PIDGEON J WALLWORK J MURRAY J | 3/04/00 | |
| 23 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for leave granted Appeal allowed Conviction quashed New trial ordered | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | PAUL JAMES STRICKLAND THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Evidence of identification or recognition Evidence of complainant in sexual assault case Need for trial Judge to direct jury as to danger of conviction and particular weaknesses of evidence Complainant nominating other offenders in making complaint of offence Conviction quashed Order for retrial made |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | B v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 599 Davies & Cody v The King (1937) 57 CLR 170 Director of Public Prosecutions (Nauru) v Fowler (1984) 154 CLR 627 Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555 Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193 Huck v The Queen [1988] WAR 231 King v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 423 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 R v Marijancevic (1993) 70 A Crim R 272 R v Turnbull [1977] 1 QB 224 Alexander v The Queen (1981) 145 CLR 395 Bourke v The Queen (1988) 62 ALJR 425 Bromley v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 315 R v Cecconi (1988) 34 A Crim R 160 Cleland v The Queen (1982) 151 CLR 1 R v Holden (1990) 56 A Crim R 32 Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439 R v King (1985) 17 A Crim R 184 R v King (1986) 21 A Crim R 436 King v The Queen [1999] WASCA 9 Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 Mickelberg v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 259 R v Fotheringham [1975] Crim LR 710 R v Schmahl [1965] VR 745 R v Torney (1983) 8 A Crim R 437 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : STRICKLAND -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 79 CORAM : PIDGEON J
- WALLWORK J
MURRAY J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Evidence of identification or recognition - Evidence of complainant in sexual assault case - Need for trial Judge to direct jury as to danger of conviction and particular weaknesses of evidence - Complainant nominating other offenders in making complaint of offence - Conviction quashed - Order for retrial made
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Application for leave granted
(Page 2)
Appeal allowed
Conviction quashed
New trial ordered
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr R D Young
Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC
Solicitors:
Applicant : Gunning
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
B v The Queen (1992)…
Continue reading Strickland v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Strickland v The Queen [2000] WASCA 79
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 79
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The respondent, Strickland, was convicted of sexual assault against a complainant. The appeal against the conviction was brought before the High Court of Australia. The key issue in the appeal was whether the trial judge should have directed the jury about the potential danger of convicting the respondent based on the evidence provided by the complainant and the weaknesses in the evidence.
The court examined whether the trial judge had an obligation to instruct the jury on the inherent dangers of convicting a person based on the evidence of the complainant, particularly in a sexual assault case. It was noted that the complainant had nominated other potential offenders during her complaint, raising questions about the reliability and credibility of her identification of the respondent as the perpetrator. The court held that the trial judge had a duty to address the potential dangers and weaknesses in the evidence to ensure a fair trial. The failure to do so constituted a significant error that potentially affected the outcome of the case.
As a result of the court's decision, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed. The court ordered a new trial for the respondent, emphasising the importance of ensuring a fair trial through proper judicial direction regarding the dangers and weaknesses in the evidence presented. The decision underscores the necessity for trial judges to adequately instruct juries on critical aspects of the evidence, particularly in cases where the credibility of the complainant's identification of the accused may be in question.
The court examined whether the trial judge had an obligation to instruct the jury on the inherent dangers of convicting a person based on the evidence of the complainant, particularly in a sexual assault case. It was noted that the complainant had nominated other potential offenders during her complaint, raising questions about the reliability and credibility of her identification of the respondent as the perpetrator. The court held that the trial judge had a duty to address the potential dangers and weaknesses in the evidence to ensure a fair trial. The failure to do so constituted a significant error that potentially affected the outcome of the case.
As a result of the court's decision, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed. The court ordered a new trial for the respondent, emphasising the importance of ensuring a fair trial through proper judicial direction regarding the dangers and weaknesses in the evidence presented. The decision underscores the necessity for trial judges to adequately instruct juries on critical aspects of the evidence, particularly in cases where the credibility of the complainant's identification of the accused may be in question.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave granted
Appeal allowed
Conviction quashed
New trial 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.