Thorne v The State of Western Australia - [2006] WASCA 218

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: THORNE -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2006] WASCA 218

CORAM: WHEELER JA
McLURE JA
BUSS JA

HEARD: 22 SEPTEMBER 2006

DELIVERED : 22 SEPTEMBER 2006

PUBLISHED : 26 OCTOBER 2006

FILE NO/S: CACR 213 of 2005

BETWEEN: JAMES THOMAS THORNE
Appellant
AND
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :GROVES DCJ
File No  :IND 1830 of 2004

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Liberato direction - Failure to direct on use of recent complaint and prior inconsistent statements - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal upheld
Convictions quashed
Retrial ordered

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr P J Urquhart
Respondent: Mr K P Bates

Solicitors:

Appellant: Jeremy Noble
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Anderson (2001) 127 A Crim R 116
Driscoll v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 517
Job v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 186
Kilby v The Queen (1973) 129 CLR 460
Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507

Case(s) also cited:

Eastough v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA: Library No 980108; 12 March 1998
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193
Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 1
R v Lillyman [1896] 2 QB 167
R v Schmahl [1965] VR 745
R v Vye [1993] 1 WLR 471
Trimboli v The Queen (1979) 21 SASR 577

WHEELER JA: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons to be delivered by McLure JA. They reflect my own reasons for joining in the orders made, and I have nothing to add to them.
McLURE JA: On 22 September 2006 the Court made orders that the appeal be allowed, the appellant's convictions be quashed and that there be a retrial. These are my reasons for joining in the making of those orders.
The appellant was charged with four counts of unlawfully and indecently assaulting the complainant. The indecent assaults were said to have occurred between 1970 and 1974 when the complainant, who at the relevant time was the appellant's step‑daughter, was aged between 11 and 15. After a mistrial in May 2005, the appellant was convicted after trial in October 2005 on counts 2 and 3 and acquitted on counts 1 and 4. On 28 October 2005 the appellant was sentenced to 32 months' imprisonment with eligibility for parole.
The appellant relied on four grounds of appeal being that the learned trial Judge erred in:
1.failing to direct the jury as to the use it could make of recent complaint evidence;
2.failing to give the jury any direction as to the way in which prior inconsistent statements were to be treated;
3.failing to direct the jury that the appellant's prior good character had a bearing on the credibility of his evidence;
4.directing the jury that:
" … if you find as a…

Grounds of appeal

[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 Thorne v The State of Western Australia

Details

AGLC: Thorne v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 218
Case: [2006] WASCA 218
Decision Date: 22 SEPTEMBER 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Thorne v The State of Western Australia involved the defendant, Thorne, who was prosecuted by the State of Western Australia for serious criminal offences. The dispute centred around the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury, specifically whether the judge failed to appropriately address the use of recent complaints and prior inconsistent statements made by the defendant. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of Western Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge's failure to direct the jury on the appropriate considerations for evaluating recent complaints and prior inconsistent statements constituted a miscarriage of justice. This required the court to examine the principles governing the admissibility and weight of such evidence and the necessity for specific jury directions to ensure a fair trial.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had indeed omitted to provide a necessary direction on the use of recent complaints and prior inconsistent statements, which was critical in this case. The court held that such omissions could lead to a miscarriage of justice, as they did not allow the jury to properly assess the reliability and probative value of this type of evidence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the convictions were quashed. The court emphasised that each case turns on its own facts, and the failure to give appropriate directions can have significant consequences on the outcome of a trial.

Orders