TANNER -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 60
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 60 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | 12/03/2001 | ||
| Case No: | CCA:198/2000 | 9 FEBRUARY 2001 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ ANDERSON J STEIN AJ | 9/02/01 | |
| 16 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal against conviction allowed New trial ordered | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | STEPHEN ROBERT TANNER THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Directions to jury Sexual offences against two children Evidence given of uncharged acts Sufficiency of directions as to uncharged acts Failure to give "two complainants" direction Evidence of motive to lie Sufficiency of direction on motive Delay in making complaints Directions given in accordance with Evidence Act s 36BD as to how to use evidence of delay Requirement to give "balancing" direction Sufficiency of balancing direction Character evidence discretion to exclude evidence of bad character |
Legislation: | Criminal Code s 329(11) Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 36 BD |
Case References: | Connell v The Queen (No 6) (1994) 12 WAR 133 Cook v The Queen (2000) 22 WAR 67 De Jesus v The Queen (1986) 68 ALR 1 Kailis v The Queen (1999) 21 WAR 100 Matthews v The Queen [1973] WAR 110 Palmer v The Queen (1998) 151 ALR 16 R v Anderson (1973) 5 SASR 256 R v Beserick (1993) 30 NSWLR 510 R v Dolan (1992) 58 SASR 501 R v Grech [1997] 2 VR 609 R v K (1997) 68 SASR 405 R v S (1998) 103 A Crim R 101 R v T (1996) 86 A Crim R 293 R v Uhrig, unreported; SCt of NSW; 24 October 1996 Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427 Dawson v The Queen [2001] WASCA 2 De Luce v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960375; 19 July 1996 Dempsey v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960059; 9 February 1996 Eastough v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980108; 12 March 1998 Forbes v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950226; 20 February 1995 Leary v The Queen [1975] WAR 133 Lombardo v The Queen [1999] WASCA 127 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 163 ALR 483 Matusevich v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 633 Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 73 ALJR 1097 Nicoletti v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970578; 4 November 1997 R v MacDonald (1995) 84 A Crim R 508 Rodd v The Queen [2000] WASCA 329 T v The Queen [2000] WASCA 153 Trescuri v The Queen [1999] WASCA 172 Tsagaris v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980721; 14 December 1998 Wedd v The Queen [2000] WASCA 273 Woods v The Queen (1994) 14 WAR 341 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : TANNER -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 60 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- ANDERSON J
STEIN AJ
Continue reading Tanner v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Tanner v The Queen [2001] WASCA 60
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 60
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant was convicted of various sexual offences against two complainants. He appealed against his convictions on the basis that the trial judge had failed to give appropriate directions to the jury in relation to certain aspects of the evidence. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge had adequately directed the jury about the use of evidence of uncharged acts, the failure to give a "two complainants" direction, the adequacy of the direction on evidence of motive to lie, the directions given in accordance with the Evidence Act s 36BD regarding the use of evidence of delay in making complaints, and the sufficiency of the "balancing" direction. Additionally, the court considered whether the trial judge had correctly exercised the discretion to exclude evidence of bad character.
The court found that the trial judge had failed to give an adequate direction to the jury regarding the use of evidence of uncharged acts. The judge had not cautioned the jury that the evidence of uncharged acts was not to be considered as proof of the appellant's character or propensity to commit such offences. The court held that this omission was a significant error. Furthermore, the court found that the trial judge had not given a "two complainants" direction, which would have cautioned the jury against convicting the appellant on the basis of the testimony of one complainant without corroboration from the other. The court also found that the direction given on evidence of motive to lie was inadequate, and that the directions given in accordance with Evidence Act s 36BD as to how to use evidence of delay were not sufficient. Lastly, the court found that the trial judge had failed to give a "balancing" direction regarding the character evidence, which was a significant error. The court held that these errors were sufficient to allow the appeal and order a new trial.
The appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered. The court held that the errors in the directions given to the jury were such that they might have affected the outcome of the trial. The conviction was quashed, and the matter was remitted for a new trial.
The court found that the trial judge had failed to give an adequate direction to the jury regarding the use of evidence of uncharged acts. The judge had not cautioned the jury that the evidence of uncharged acts was not to be considered as proof of the appellant's character or propensity to commit such offences. The court held that this omission was a significant error. Furthermore, the court found that the trial judge had not given a "two complainants" direction, which would have cautioned the jury against convicting the appellant on the basis of the testimony of one complainant without corroboration from the other. The court also found that the direction given on evidence of motive to lie was inadequate, and that the directions given in accordance with Evidence Act s 36BD as to how to use evidence of delay were not sufficient. Lastly, the court found that the trial judge had failed to give a "balancing" direction regarding the character evidence, which was a significant error. The court held that these errors were sufficient to allow the appeal and order a new trial.
The appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered. The court held that the errors in the directions given to the jury were such that they might have affected the outcome of the trial. The conviction was quashed, and the matter was remitted for a new trial.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal against conviction allowed
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.