Wheatley v The Queen - [2004] WASCA 71

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: WHEATLEY -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 71

CORAM: STEYTLER J
WHEELER J
MCKECHNIE J

HEARD: 11-13 FEBRUARY 2004

DELIVERED : 8 APRIL 2004

FILE NO/S: CCA 197 of 2002

BETWEEN: ROWAN CHELTON SINCLAIR WHEATLEY
Petitioner
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram   :YEATS DCJ
File Number            :  IND GER 1 of 1997

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Reference by the AttorneyGeneral of a petition for the Royal Prerogative of Mercy - Appeal against conviction - Whether the evidence led is fresh evidence or new evidence - Whether the evidence led at the appeal casts doubt on the credibility of a witness at the trial - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Petitioner: Mr L B Robbins
Respondent: Mr D Dempster

Solicitors:

Petitioner: Bayly & O'Brien
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Easterday v The Queen [2003] WASCA 69
Gallagher v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 392
Lawless v The Queen (1979) 142 CLR 659
Mallard v The Queen [2003] WASCA 296
Mickelberg v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 259
Mickelberg v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990056; 12 February 1999
Nolan v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970260; 22 May 1997
Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

STEYTLER J: On 6 November 1997 the petitioner was convicted by a jury on seven counts charged in an indictment which had been brought jointly against him and two co‑offenders, Craig Norton and Richard Heron. Those charges read as follows:
"(1)On 20 March 1996 at Greenhead ROWAN CHELTON SINCLAIR WHEATLEY and CRAIG DALLAS BRAMBLEY NORTON entered the place of MATTHEW JOHN MOREY without his consent, with intent to commit an offence therein.
(2)AND FURTHER that on the date and at the place referred to in Count 1 ROWAN CHELTON SINCLAIR WHEATLEY and CRAIG DALLAS BRAMBLEY NORTON unlawfully assaulted MATTHEW JOHN MOREY and thereby did him bodily harm.
(3)AND FURTHER that on the date and at the place referred to in Count 1 ROWAN CHELTON SINCLAIR WHEATLEY and CRAIG DALLAS BRAMBLEY NORTON unlawfully detained MATTHEW JOHN MOREY.
(4)AND FURTHER that on the date and at the place referred to in Count 1 ROWAN CHELTON SINCLAIR WHEATLEY and CRAIG DALLAS BRAMBLEY NORTON wilfully and unlawfully damaged a security screen door the property of BRIAN THOMAS MOREY.
(5)AND FURTHER that on or about 21 March 1996 at Greenhead ROWAN CHELTON SINCLAIR WHEATLEY attempted to enter the place of DARREN LEE MOREY with intent to commit an offence therein.
(6)AND FURTHER that on the date and at the place referred to in Count 5 ROWAN CHELTON SINCLAIR WHEATLEY and RICHARD CLYDE HERON wilfully and unlawfully damaged a security screen door the property of BRIAN THOMAS MOREY.
(7)AND FURTHER that on the date and at…

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 Wheatley v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Wheatley v The Queen [2004] WASCA 71
Case: [2004] WASCA 71
Decision Date: 8 APRIL 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court, the petitioner, Wheatley, sought to appeal against his conviction for a serious criminal offence. The Attorney-General had referred a petition for the Royal Prerogative of Mercy to the court. The central issue was whether the evidence presented was fresh or new, and if it cast doubt on the credibility of a witness who testified at the trial. The petitioner argued that the evidence was fresh and undermined the witness's credibility.

The court needed to determine the nature of the evidence and its impact on the trial's outcome. It examined whether the evidence was indeed fresh or new and if it had the potential to significantly affect the credibility of the witness. The court also considered the implications of admitting such evidence in the context of the appeal process.

The court concluded that the evidence presented was not fresh but rather new. It held that new evidence does not automatically warrant a re-evaluation of the conviction unless it substantially impacts the witness's credibility or the case's outcome. The court found that the evidence did not sufficiently cast doubt on the witness's credibility to warrant a reconsideration of the conviction. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction upheld.

The court's decision emphasised the distinction between fresh and new evidence and the stringent criteria required for new evidence to overturn a conviction. The petitioner's appeal was denied, and the conviction remained in place.

Orders