WINMAR -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 239

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 239
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:95/2000	Heard:	22 JUNE 2001
Coram:	KENNEDY J WALLWORK J PIDGEON AUJ	Delivered:	14/08/01
No of pages:	14	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal granted Convictions quashed New trials ordered
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	JAMES ROSS WINMAR THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Evidence Lies told by accused in evidence Reference by trial Judge to a blanket denial of 13 counts Inadequacy of directions to jury Convictions quashed
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193 Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234 Zonev v The Queen (2000) 74 ALJR 895 Chidiac v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 432 Gallegos v The Queen [1999] WASCA 191 Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Medcraft v R [1982] WAR 33 Osland v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 316 R v Adams and Ross [1965] Qd R 255 R v Byczko (No 1) (1977) 16 SASR 506 R v E (A Child) (1993) 66 A Crim R 14 R v Kehagias [1985] VR 107 R v Marchesano (1992) 61 A Crim R 372 R v Williams [1988] VR 261 R v Wurramara (1999) 105 A Crim R 512 Wagenaar v The Queen [2000] WASCA 325

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : WINMAR -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 239 CORAM : KENNEDY J

WALLWORK J

PIDGEON AUJ

HEARD : 22 JUNE 2001 DELIVERED : 14 AUGUST 2001 FILE NO/S : CCA 95 of 2000

CCA 134 of 2000

BETWEEN : JAMES ROSS WINMAR

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Evidence - Lies told by accused in evidence - Reference by trial Judge to a blanket denial of 13 counts - Inadequacy of directions to jury - Convictions quashed

Legislation:

Nil

(Page 2)

Result:

Leave to appeal granted

Convictions quashed
New trials ordered

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr B S Hanbury

Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC

Solicitors:

Applicant : Beau Hanbury

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193
Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234
Zonev v The Queen (2000) 74 ALJR 895

Case(s) also cited:

Chidiac v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 432
Gallegos v The Queen [1999] WASCA 191
Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Medcraft v R [1982] WAR 33
Osland v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 316
R v Adams and Ross [1965] Qd R 255
R v Byczko (No 1) (1977) 16 SASR 506
R v E (A Child) (1993) 66 A Crim R 14
R v Kehagias [1985] VR 107

(Page 3)

R v Marchesano (1992) 61 A Crim R…

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 Winmar v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Winmar v The Queen [2001] WASCA 239
Case: [2001] WASCA 239
Decision Date: 14 AUGUST 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Winmar v The Queen involved the appellant, Winmar, who was convicted on 13 counts of various criminal offences. The nature of the dispute revolved around the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury concerning the weight to be given to evidence where the accused had denied all charges. The High Court of Australia was tasked with examining whether the trial judge's reference to a blanket denial by the accused of all 13 counts was sufficient in directing the jury on the evaluation of the evidence.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate in light of the appellant's blanket denial of all charges. The court needed to determine if the judge's comments sufficiently guided the jury on how to approach the assessment of the appellant's credibility and the weight to be assigned to his evidence. The appellant argued that the judge's reference to a blanket denial was inadequate and prejudicial, leading to an unfair trial.

The High Court found that the trial judge's directions to the jury were indeed inadequate. The blanket reference to the accused's denial of all charges did not provide the jury with the necessary guidance on how to assess the credibility of the appellant's evidence in relation to each specific count. The court held that such a reference was not a sufficient direction, as it failed to address the distinct issues of credibility and weight in relation to each count. Consequently, the convictions were quashed, and the case was remitted for a new trial. The court granted leave to appeal and ordered that new trials be conducted to ensure a fair evaluation of the evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted

Convictions quashed

New trials ordered

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.