WINNING -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 44
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2002] WASCA 44 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:70/2001 | 10 DECEMBER 2001 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ STEYTLER J OLSSON AUJ | 7/03/02 | |
| 13 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal grantedAppeal allowedConviction quashed and a new trial ordered | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MARK DOUGLAS WINNING THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Evidence Two accused charged with wilful murder Each accused alleging it was the other who was guilty of the offence Antecedent record of one accused admissible as part of the defence case of a co-accused to show it was more probable that the latter was guilty |
Legislation: | Criminal Code 1913 s 278 |
Case References: | Bracewell v The Queen (1979) 68 Cr App Rep 44 Knight v Jones, Ex parte Jones [1981] Qd R 98 Lowery v The Queen [1974] AC 85 Makin v Attorney-General for New South Wales [1894] AC 57 R v Demivrok [1976] VR 244 R v Gibb & Anor [1983] 2 VR 155 Rex v Miller (1952) 36 Cr App R 169 Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : WINNING -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 44 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- STEYTLER J
OLSSON AUJ
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Evidence - Two accused charged with wilful murder - Each accused alleging it was the other who was guilty of the offence - Antecedent record of one accused admissible as part of the defence case of a co-accused to show it was more probable that the latter was guilty
Legislation:
Criminal Code 1913, s 278
(Page 2)
Result:
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
Conviction quashed and a new trial ordered
Category: A
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr T F Percy QC
Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC & Ms H L Porter
Solicitors:
Appellant : Pearman Grantham
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Bracewell v The Queen (1979) 68 Cr App Rep 44
Knight v Jones, Ex parte Jones [1981] Qd R 98
Lowery v The Queen [1974] AC 85
Makin v Attorney-General for New South Wales [1894] AC 57
R v Demivrok [1976] VR 244
R v Gibb & Anor [1983] 2 VR 155
Rex v Miller (1952) 36 Cr App R 169
Case(s) also cited:
Nil
(Page 3)
1 MALCOLM CJ: In my opinion leave to appeal should be granted, the appeal allowed, the conviction for wilful murder quashed, the sentence imposed on the appellant set aside and a new trial ordered. I have reached this conclusion for the reasons to be published by Olsson J with which I am in entire agreement. Like Olsson J I would remand the appellant in custody on the charge…
Continue reading Winning v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Winning v The Queen [2002] WASCA 44
- Case
- [2002] WASCA 44
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter of Winning v The Queen involved two individuals charged with the wilful murder of a person. Each accused person claimed that the other was responsible for the offence. The case reached the court of appeal, where the legal issues centred around the admissibility of an antecedent record of one accused as part of the defence case of the co-accused. The central question was whether such evidence could be used to establish that it was more probable that the latter was guilty.
The court examined the principles of criminal law, particularly the rules surrounding the admissibility of evidence in cases involving multiple accused persons. It considered whether the antecedent record could be relevant in proving the guilt of the co-accused. The court held that the antecedent record of one accused could be admissible if it contributed to showing that it was more probable that the co-accused was guilty. The court's reasoning was grounded in the need to ensure that the evidence was relevant and could assist in determining the probability of guilt of the accused in question.
As a result of the court's decision, the appeal was allowed. The conviction was quashed, and a new trial was ordered. The court granted leave to appeal, emphasising the importance of correctly applying the rules of evidence in criminal trials, particularly in cases involving co-accused where each claims the other is guilty. The final orders included allowing the appeal, quashing the conviction, and ordering a new trial to ensure that the legal principles were properly applied.
The court examined the principles of criminal law, particularly the rules surrounding the admissibility of evidence in cases involving multiple accused persons. It considered whether the antecedent record could be relevant in proving the guilt of the co-accused. The court held that the antecedent record of one accused could be admissible if it contributed to showing that it was more probable that the co-accused was guilty. The court's reasoning was grounded in the need to ensure that the evidence was relevant and could assist in determining the probability of guilt of the accused in question.
As a result of the court's decision, the appeal was allowed. The conviction was quashed, and a new trial was ordered. The court granted leave to appeal, emphasising the importance of correctly applying the rules of evidence in criminal trials, particularly in cases involving co-accused where each claims the other is guilty. The final orders included allowing the appeal, quashing the conviction, and ordering a new trial to ensure that the legal principles were properly applied.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal grantedAppeal allowedConviction quashed and a new trial 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.