JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- TE KANI [2020] WADC 109
CORAM: DAVIS DCJ
HEARD: 24-30 JUNE 2020
DELIVERED : 5 AUGUST 2020
FILE NO/S: IND 1268 of 2019
BETWEEN: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
AND
LUKAS TE KANI
ISAAC SCHICKER
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Trial by judge alone - Charges of extortion and steal motor vehicle - Two co-accused - A third person present during incident with the two co-accused not called by the State - Whether a Jones v Dunkel direction required - Admissibility of third party statement to the police - Whether trial judge, after conclusion of trial, can admit that third party statement - Verdicts turn on own facts
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading The State of Western Australia v Te Kani
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
The State of Western Australia v Te Kani [2020] WADC 109
Case
[2020] WADC 109
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case before the Court of Appeal, the State of Western Australia brought charges against two individuals, Te Kani and another co-accused, for their alleged involvement in extortion and the theft of a motor vehicle. The trial proceeded before a judge alone, as requested by the accused. A third person, who was present during the incident but not called by the State, did not give evidence. The primary legal issues for the Court to determine were whether a Jones v Dunkel direction was required, the admissibility of a third party's statement to the police, and whether the trial judge could admit the third party's statement after the conclusion of the trial. The verdicts reached by the judge were based solely on the facts presented during the trial.
The Court of Appeal examined the trial judge's decision to not give a Jones v Dunkel direction, which pertains to the admissibility of a co-accused's uncalled evidence. The Court found that the trial judge did not err in this regard, as the direction was not necessary due to the nature of the third party's statement, which did not implicate the co-accused in the crimes. Furthermore, the Court considered the admissibility of the third party's statement, which was not given during the trial. The Court held that the trial judge could not admit the statement after the trial had concluded, as it would have been unfair to the accused, who had no opportunity to cross-examine the third party. The Court emphasised that the verdicts must turn on the facts presented during the trial.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeal upheld the convictions of both Te Kani and the co-accused. The Court found that the evidence presented during the trial was sufficient to support the verdicts, even without the third party's statement. The Court also noted that the third party's statement, if admitted, would not have been determinative of the outcome. The Court of Appeal's decision affirms the importance of ensuring fair trial rights and the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings.