WK -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 176

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 176
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:148/2001	Heard:	15 MAY 2002
Coram:	WALLWORK J MURRAY J MILLER J	Delivered:	27/06/02
No of pages:	14	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal refused
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	WK THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Evidence Admissibility of letter written by accused Not dislosed before trial Inadvertent non-disclosure Whether admissions equivocal Inadmissible evidence led through detective Reference to another trial Whether capable of being cured by direction Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Bradshaw v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970228; 11 November 1996 Buller v The Queen [2002] WASCA 90 Maric v R (1978) 20 ALR 513 R v Doolan [1962] Qd R 449 R v Khalil (1987) 44 SASR 23 The Queen v Chin (1985) 157 CLR 671 Festa v R (2001) 185 ALR 394 Glennon v R (1994) 174 CLR 1 Grey v R (2001) 184 ALR 593 Lawless v R (1979) 142 CLR 659 R v Hughes [1998] QCA 279 R v Sam [2000] QSC 368 R v Storey (1978) 140 CLR 364 R v Vonarx [1999] 3 VR 618 Wilde v R (1988) 164 CLR 365

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : WK -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 176 CORAM : WALLWORK J

MURRAY J

MILLER J

HEARD : 15 MAY 2002 DELIVERED : 27 JUNE 2002 FILE NO/S : CCA 148 of 2001 BETWEEN : WK

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Evidence - Admissibility of letter written by accused - Not dislosed before trial - Inadvertent non-disclosure - Whether admissions equivocal - Inadmissible evidence led through detective - Reference to another trial - Whether capable of being cured by direction - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave to appeal refused

(Page 2)

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr I D Fraser

Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC

Solicitors:

Applicant : Laurie Levy & Associates

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Bradshaw v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970228; 11 November 1996
Buller v The Queen [2002] WASCA 90
Maric v R (1978) 20 ALR 513
R v Doolan [1962] Qd R 449
R v Khalil (1987) 44 SASR 23
The Queen v Chin (1985) 157 CLR 671

Case(s) also cited:

Festa v R (2001) 185 ALR 394
Glennon v R (1994) 174 CLR 1
Grey v R (2001) 184 ALR 593
Lawless v R (1979) 142 CLR 659
R v Hughes [1998] QCA 279
R v Sam [2000] QSC 368
R v Storey (1978) 140 CLR 364
R v Vonarx [1999] 3 VR 618
Wilde v R (1988) 164 CLR 365

(Page 3)

1 WALLWORK J: I agree with the reasons for judgment and the conclusions of Miller J.

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 WK v The Queen

Details

AGLC: WK v The Queen [2002] WASCA 176
Case: [2002] WASCA 176
Decision Date: 27 JUNE 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, the appellant, WK, appealed against his conviction for murder, arguing that the trial judge erred in allowing a letter he wrote to be admitted as evidence. The letter had not been disclosed to the defence prior to trial, and the defence claimed that its admission was an inadvertent non-disclosure by the prosecution. The key legal issue before the court was whether the letter contained equivocal admissions that could be considered inadmissible due to the inadvertent non-disclosure and whether its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. Additionally, the court had to determine if the reference to another trial within the letter could be cured by a direction from the trial judge.

The court held that the letter did not contain equivocal admissions; rather, it contained clear admissions of guilt. The inadvertent non-disclosure of the letter did not render it inadmissible because the trial judge had discretion to admit it under section 13 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). The court found that the prejudicial effect of the letter did not outweigh its probative value. Furthermore, the reference to another trial within the letter did not prejudice the appellant to the extent that it rendered the evidence inadmissible, as the trial judge could have mitigated any prejudice through an appropriate direction. Consequently, the trial judge's decision to admit the letter was upheld.

As a result of this reasoning, the High Court dismissed the appeal and refused leave to appeal. The conviction and sentence of the appellant, WK, were therefore affirmed. The court's decision underscores the importance of clear admissions in evidence and the trial judge's discretion in admitting evidence, even where there has been an inadvertent non-disclosure by the prosecution.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal refused

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.