Criminal Law—Evidence—Similar facts—Wrongful admission—Misdirection of jury—Whether substantial miscarriage of justice—Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (N.S.W.), s.6(1).
Decisions
BRENNAN, DAWSON AND TOOHEY JJ. This case raises for consideration the application of the proviso to s.6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (N.S.W.). The applicant was tried on indictment in the District Court of New South Wales before her Honour Judge Matthews and a jury. The indictment contained eight counts. The first two counts related to events which occurred on 26 September 1983. The first count charged that the applicant threatened to inflict actual bodily harm upon a woman by means of an offensive weapon with intent to have sexual intercourse with her. The second count charged that on the same occasion he stole $50 from the same woman. Whilst the evidence established the threat clearly enough, the learned trial judge concluded that it fell short of establishing an intent to have sexual intercourse. Her Honour directed an acquittal upon that count and the jury entered a verdict of not guilty in accordance with that direction. The evidence on the second count was that after the attack, which took place in the bedroom of the woman's home, approximately $50 were missing from her purse. This evidence was not challenged and, as the trial judge pointed out to the jury, it was an obvious conclusion that the money was stolen by the intruder, whoever he was. At the end of the trial, the jury acquitted the applicant on this count.
2. The next two counts in the indictment related to events which occurred at premises in Warrawee, on 28 September 1983. The third count charged that the applicant broke and entered the premises and stole a car key and the fourth count charged that he there stole a Sigma sedan. The applicant was convicted on these counts.
3. The remaining four counts related to events which occurred on 29 September 1983 in a house at North Rocks. The fifth, sixth and seventh counts charged that the applicant committed a series of sexual offences against a woman, and the eighth count charged that he stole two rings and $80 in money from her. The applicant was convicted on all of these counts. The complainant on this occasion was a mother with twin babies, who arrived home during the morning and observed a blue Sigma sedan parked outside her neighbour's house. (The Sigma sedan which was stolen on 28 September was a blue Sigma sedan.) She entered her house with one of her children, leaving the other in her car. In the hallway she was confronted by a man with a knife in his hand who forced her upstairs to the main bedroom. The contents of her dressing-table drawers had been emptied on the floor and her jewellery box had been emptied on the bed and on the floor. The intruder…
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 Wilde v the Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Wilde v the Queen [1988] HCA 6
Case
[1988] HCA 6
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Wilde v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Wilde, against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained during a police investigation and the subsequent directions given to the jury regarding that evidence.
The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence that had been obtained in circumstances where the applicant alleged his rights had been infringed. Furthermore, the Court had to consider whether the judge's directions to the jury concerning the weight to be given to this evidence, and the applicant's alleged confession, were adequate and properly explained the relevant legal principles.
The Court's reasoning focused on the principles governing the admissibility of evidence obtained in breach of an accused's rights, particularly in light of the discretion afforded to trial judges to exclude such evidence if its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. The judges examined the nature of the alleged infringement and the potential impact on the fairness of the trial. They also analysed the judge's directions on the jury's role in assessing the voluntariness and reliability of the confession, and the proper application of the presumption of innocence.
The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.