WOODS -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 252
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2003] WASCA 252 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | 24/10/2003 | ||
| Case No: | CCA:18/2003 | 4 SEPTEMBER 2003 | |
| Coram: | MURRAY ACJ STEYTLER J HASLUCK J | 4/09/03 | |
| 15 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal refused | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : WOODS -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 252 CORAM : MURRAY ACJ
- STEYTLER J
HASLUCK J
PUBLISHED : 24 OCTOBER 2003 FILE NO/S : CCA 18 of 2003 BETWEEN : IAN DUDLEY WOODS
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Sexual penetration offences - Whether verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory - Inconsistencies in complainant's evidence - Leave to appeal refused
Legislation:
Criminal Code, s 689
(Page 2)
Result:
Leave to appeal refused
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr I D Hope
Respondent : Mr B Fiannaca
Solicitors:
Applicant : Ian Hope
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Allegretta v The Queen [2003] WASCA 17
Christophers v The Queen (2000) 23 WAR 106
Crisafio v The Queen [2003] WASCA 104
James v The Queen [2000] WASCA 100
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439
Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
Morris v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 454
Mraz v The Queen (1955) 93 CLR 493
Case(s) also cited:
Bromley v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 315
Carr v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 314
Crampton v The Queen (2000) 206 CLR 161
Doggett…
Continue reading Woods v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Woods v The Queen [2003] WASCA 252
- Case
- [2003] WASCA 252
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal concerns the conviction of Woods on multiple counts of sexual penetration offences against a complainant. The decision was handed down by the High Court of Australia, which reviewed the case following an appeal by the defendant. The central issue before the Court was whether the verdicts reached by the jury were unsafe and unsatisfactory, given the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence. This was particularly pertinent in light of the high threshold required for such an appeal to be successful.
The Court considered the nature and extent of the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, along with other factors such as the credibility of the witnesses and the overall body of evidence presented at trial. It examined whether the inconsistencies were significant enough to undermine the jury's conclusions and whether any reasonable jury, properly directed, could have reached the same verdicts based on the evidence presented. The Court also evaluated the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the evaluation of the complainant's testimony.
The Court found that the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, while notable, did not render the verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory. It concluded that the jury had been properly directed and that there was sufficient evidence to support their findings. The Court further held that any inconsistencies did not go to the heart of the case or affect the reliability of the evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.
The Court considered the nature and extent of the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, along with other factors such as the credibility of the witnesses and the overall body of evidence presented at trial. It examined whether the inconsistencies were significant enough to undermine the jury's conclusions and whether any reasonable jury, properly directed, could have reached the same verdicts based on the evidence presented. The Court also evaluated the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the evaluation of the complainant's testimony.
The Court found that the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, while notable, did not render the verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory. It concluded that the jury had been properly directed and that there was sufficient evidence to support their findings. The Court further held that any inconsistencies did not go to the heart of the case or affect the reliability of the evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.
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.