WILLIS -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 296
| (2001) 25 WAR 217 | |||
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 296 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:80/2000 | 23 APRIL 2001 | |
| Coram: | WALLWORK J OWEN J PARKER J | 26/09/01 | |
| 39 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | DAMIEN PETER WILLIS THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Evidence Accused interviewed twice by police Prosecution led evidence of first interview at trial but not second Whether defence could adduced evidence of second interview Interviews 12 days apart, new circumstances Not in truth one interview Criminal law Common purpose Whether evidence capable of supporting withdrawal from common purpose No new principles |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Allied Interstate (Queensland) Pty Ltd v Barnes (1968) 118 CLR 581 Bannon v The Queen (1995) 185 CLR 1 Barlow (1997) 93 A Crim R 113 Callaghan (1993) 70 A Crim R 350 Middleton v The Queen (1998) 19 WAR 179 Mraz (1955) 93 CLR 493 Pearce v The Queen (1979) 69 Cr App R 365 Pollitt v The Queen (1992) 174 CLR 558 R v Callaghan [1994] 2 Qd R 300 R v Raw (1984) 12 A Crim R 299 R v Su & Others (1995) 129 FLR 120 R v Su [1997] 1 VR 1 Seiffert & Stupar v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990003; 15 January 1999 Spence v Demasi (1988) 48 SASR 536 Walton v The Queen (1989) 166 CLR 283 Kochnieff (1987) 33 A Crim R 1 MH v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970203; 17 May 1997 Smith v Blandy (1825) 171 ER 1013 The Queen's Case (1820) 129 ER 976 Wace v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980124; 24 March 1998 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : WILLIS -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 296 CORAM : WALLWORK J
- OWEN J
PARKER J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Evidence - Accused interviewed twice by police - Prosecution led evidence of first interview at trial but not second - Whether defence could adduced evidence of second interview - Interviews 12 days apart, new circumstances - Not in truth one interview
Criminal law - Common purpose - Whether evidence capable of supporting withdrawal from common purpose - No new principles
Legislation:
Nil
(Page 2)
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Category: A
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr B J Singleton QC
Respondent : Mr B Fiannaca
Solicitors:
Applicant : Andree Horrigan
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Allied Interstate (Queensland) Pty Ltd v Barnes (1968) 118 CLR 581
Bannon v The Queen (1995) 185 CLR 1
Barlow (1997) 93 A Crim R 113
Callaghan (1993) 70 A Crim…
Continue reading Willis v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Willis v The Queen [2001] WASCA 296
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 296
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Willis v The Queen, the defendant appealed against his conviction for an offence of murder, arguing that the trial judge erred in excluding evidence of a second police interview. The trial had only included evidence of a first interview conducted 12 days earlier. The High Court of Australia was required to determine whether the trial judge's decision to exclude the second interview was legally sound.
The legal issues that arose centred on the admissibility of the second police interview and the application of the common purpose doctrine. The defence sought to introduce evidence from the second interview, arguing that it was relevant to demonstrate the defendant's withdrawal from the common purpose. The prosecution contended that the second interview was not a continuation of the first, and therefore, its exclusion was justified.
The Court found that the second interview was not a continuation of the first and was, in fact, a separate interview occurring under different circumstances. As such, the trial judge was not wrong in excluding the second interview's evidence. Additionally, the Court held that the evidence, even if admissible, was not sufficient to support a withdrawal from the common purpose. The Court concluded that no new legal principles were required to resolve the matter at hand.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The Court's decision emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process by ensuring that evidence presented in court is relevant and not prejudicial to the defendant.
The legal issues that arose centred on the admissibility of the second police interview and the application of the common purpose doctrine. The defence sought to introduce evidence from the second interview, arguing that it was relevant to demonstrate the defendant's withdrawal from the common purpose. The prosecution contended that the second interview was not a continuation of the first, and therefore, its exclusion was justified.
The Court found that the second interview was not a continuation of the first and was, in fact, a separate interview occurring under different circumstances. As such, the trial judge was not wrong in excluding the second interview's evidence. Additionally, the Court held that the evidence, even if admissible, was not sufficient to support a withdrawal from the common purpose. The Court concluded that no new legal principles were required to resolve the matter at hand.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The Court's decision emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process by ensuring that evidence presented in court is relevant and not prejudicial to the defendant.
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.