SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | Wyper v The Queen; R v Wyper |
Citation: | [2017] ACTCA 59 |
Hearing Date: | 2 November 2017 |
DecisionDate: | 11 December 2017 |
Before: | Murrell CJ, Bromwich J and Robinson AJ |
Decision: | The appellant is refused leave to appeal on ground (c). The appeals against conviction and sentence are dismissed. |
Catchwords: | APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – Appeal against conviction – whether verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the complainant’s evidence – complainant’s credibility and reliability as a witness – whether failure to put defence case to jury resulted in miscarriage of justice – whether leave is required where alleged failure to put defence case – whether failure to give appropriate direction about onus of proof regarding alleged motive to lie – no objection taken APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – Crown appeal against sentence – whether sentence manifestly inadequate – intensive correction order – nature of sentencing discretion – sentencing principles in family violence offences – not typical family violence offence – nature of intensive correction orders |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 11, 33(za) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 54(1) Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) ss 37O(2)(a) |
Cases Cited: | Barbaro v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; 253 CLR 58 Cashin v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 13 |
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Wyper v The Queen; R v Wyper and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2017] ACTCA 59
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court concerned the appellant's conviction. These included whether the verdict of the jury was unreasonable or unsupported by the complainant's evidence, particularly in light of questions about the complainant's credibility and reliability. The court also considered whether a failure to put the defence case to the jury resulted in a miscarriage of justice, and whether leave to appeal was required for such an alleged failure. Furthermore, the court examined whether an appropriate direction regarding the onus of proof for an alleged motive to lie by the complainant was given, noting that no objection was taken at trial. The court also considered a Crown appeal against the sentence imposed, specifically whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate, and the nature of sentencing discretion in family violence offences, noting this was not a typical family violence offence.
The court dismissed the appeals against conviction and sentence. Regarding the conviction, the court found that the complainant's evidence, despite its challenges, was capable of supporting the verdict. The court also determined that any alleged failure to put the defence case to the jury did not occasion a miscarriage of justice, and that the directions given regarding the onus of proof were adequate in the circumstances. On the sentence appeal, the court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly inadequate, considering the specific nature of the offences and the appellant's circumstances.
Consequently, the appellant was refused leave to appeal on ground (c), and both the appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
The appellant is refused leave to appeal on ground (c).
The appeals against conviction and sentence are 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.