WHITSED -v- THE QUEEN [2005] WASCA 208
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2005] WASCA 208 | |
| Case No: | CCA:132/2003 | 1 SEPTEMBER 2005 | |
| Coram: | ROBERTS-SMITH JA PULLIN JA MILLER AJA | 7/11/05 | |
| 48 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | GARRY DOUGLAS WHITSED THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Two counts of wilful murder Prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence Whether verdicts unreasonable and/or unsupportable having regard to the evidence Multiple grounds Appellant in person Attempts to argue matters not based on evidence Directions of trial Judge Whether directions on view appropriate Forensic evidence Whether speculative Whether jurors warned adequately about publicity Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Criminal Code (WA), s 570D, s 570D(2)(b), s 570D(2)(c) Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 32 |
Case References: | Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193 Greer v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960120; 6 March 1996 Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 Martin v Osborne (1936) 55 CLR 367 Mason v The Queen (1912) 7 Crim App R 67 Noble v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 333 Parker v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960740; 20 December 1996 Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234 R v Meko (2004) 146 A Crim R 141 R v Middleton (2000) 114 A Crim R 258 R v Polykarpou (1985) 18 A Crim R 288 Velevski v The Queen (2002) 187 ALR 233 De Gruchy v The Queen (2002) 211 CLR 85 McCarrol v The Queen [2004] WASCA 131 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : WHITSED -v- THE QUEEN [2005] WASCA 208 CORAM : ROBERTS-SMITH JA
- PULLIN JA
MILLER AJA
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : PARKER J
File No : INS 214 of 2002
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Two counts of wilful murder - Prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence - Whether verdicts unreasonable and/or unsupportable having regard to the evidence - Multiple grounds - Appellant in person - Attempts to argue matters not based on evidence - Directions of trial Judge - Whether directions on view appropriate - Forensic evidence - Whether speculative - Whether jurors warned adequately about publicity - Turns on own facts
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Criminal Code (WA), s 570D, s 570D(2)(b), s 570D(2)(c)
Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 32
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : Mr J Mactaggart & Ms A C Longden
Solicitors:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193
Greer v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960120; 6 March…
Continue reading Whitsed v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Whitsed v The Queen [2005] WASCA 208
- Case
- [2005] WASCA 208
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Whitsed v The Queen, the appellant, Whitsed, was convicted on two counts of wilful murder and appealed against the verdicts. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. Whitsed was tried in person and the prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence. Whitsed's appeal centred on the contention that the verdicts were unreasonable and/or unsupportable given the evidence presented. Additionally, Whitsed argued that certain directions given by the trial judge were inappropriate and that the jury was not adequately warned about the risks of prejudice from publicity.
The legal issues before the court were whether the verdicts were unreasonable or unsupportable in light of the evidence, whether the trial judge's directions were appropriate, and whether the jury was sufficiently cautioned about potential prejudicial publicity. The court considered the evidence and the manner in which it was presented, the nature of the directions given by the trial judge, and the adequacy of the warnings about publicity. The court also examined whether the forensic evidence was speculative and whether it was appropriately evaluated by the jury.
The High Court found that the verdicts were supported by the evidence and were not unreasonable. The court determined that the trial judge's directions were appropriate, and that the jury had been adequately warned about the risks of prejudicial publicity. The court held that the evidence, including the forensic evidence, was not speculative and was properly considered by the jury. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the convictions on both counts of wilful murder.
The legal issues before the court were whether the verdicts were unreasonable or unsupportable in light of the evidence, whether the trial judge's directions were appropriate, and whether the jury was sufficiently cautioned about potential prejudicial publicity. The court considered the evidence and the manner in which it was presented, the nature of the directions given by the trial judge, and the adequacy of the warnings about publicity. The court also examined whether the forensic evidence was speculative and whether it was appropriately evaluated by the jury.
The High Court found that the verdicts were supported by the evidence and were not unreasonable. The court determined that the trial judge's directions were appropriate, and that the jury had been adequately warned about the risks of prejudicial publicity. The court held that the evidence, including the forensic evidence, was not speculative and was properly considered by the jury. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the convictions on both counts of wilful murder.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal 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.