SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | Warne v The King |
Citation: | [2023] ACTCA 1 |
Hearing Date: | 7 November 2022 |
DecisionDate: | 5 January 2023 |
Before: | Mossop, Kennett and Bromwich JJ |
Decision: | (1) By 12 January 2023 the parties are to file proposed orders showing the amendments to the sentences imposed by Walmsley AJ on 1 June 2022 (and any other orders) that they submit are appropriate to deal with the sentence having been stayed pending the hearing of this appeal. (2) The appeal is otherwise dismissed. |
Catchwords: | APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against conviction – whether verdict of guilty was unreasonable – where appellant identified by multiple witnesses – consideration of reliability and credibility of identification APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – identification evidence – where appellant identified by multiple witnesses – adequacy of directions given by trial Judge – whether trial Judge erred in failing to direct the jury that multiple sources of identification evidence cannot support each other – whether identifications independent of each other – whether trial Judge erred in failing to give Murray direction APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against sentence – parity principle – where co-offender entered pleas of guilty – where co-offender sentenced on different factual basis – whether marked or unjustified discrepancy in their treatment APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against sentence – whether primary Judge erred by not considering section 11(3) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) when declining to order that sentence by served by intensive correction order |
Legislation Cited: | Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) r 5531 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 10, 11 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 37Q |
Cases Cited: | Dansie v The Queen [2022] HCA 25; 96 ALJR 72 Fenech v R [2018] NSWCCA 160 UQ v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 23; 14 ACTLR 172 |
Parties: | Alexander Douglas Jeremy Warne ( Appellant) The King ( Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel C O’Neill ( Appellant) K McCann ( Respondent) |
| Solicitors Hugo Law Group ( Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Respondent) | |
File Number: | ACTCA 11 of 2022 |
Decision under appeal: | Court/Tribunal: Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory Before: Walmsley AJ Date of Decision: 3 March 2022 Case Title:… |
Continue reading Warne v The King
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Warne v The King [2023] ACTCA 1
- Case
- [2023] ACTCA 1
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the verdict of guilty was unreasonable, particularly in light of the identification evidence provided by multiple witnesses. This involved considering the reliability and credibility of those identifications and whether the trial judge had adequately directed the jury on the use of such evidence. Specifically, the court had to consider if the judge erred by failing to direct the jury that multiple sources of identification evidence cannot support each other, and whether the identifications were independent. The court also had to consider if the trial judge erred in failing to give a *Murray* direction. In relation to the sentence appeal, the court considered whether there was a parity principle breach due to a co-offender receiving a different sentence, and whether the primary judge erred by not considering section 11(3) of the *Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005* (ACT) when declining to order that the sentence be served by intensive correction order.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that the verdict was not unreasonable. The court was satisfied that the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the identification evidence were adequate and that the identifications were sufficiently independent. The appeal against sentence was also dismissed, with the court finding no error in the sentencing judge's approach to the parity principle or the consideration of the intensive correction order. The court did, however, make orders regarding the practical implementation of the sentence having been stayed pending the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) By 12 January 2023 the parties are to file proposed orders showing the amendments to the sentences imposed by Walmsley AJ on 1 June 2022 (and any other orders) that they submit are appropriate to deal with the sentence having been stayed pending the hearing of this appeal.
(2) The appeal is otherwise 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.