SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND"

Transcription

1 SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Galigan [2017] QCA 231 PARTIES: R v GALIGAN, Robert Brian (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 53 of 2017 DC No 61 of 2016 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Appeal against Conviction DELIVERED ON: 13 October 2017 DELIVERED AT: District Court at Townsville Date of Conviction: 20 March 2017 (Smith DCJ) Brisbane HEARING DATE: 31 July 2017 JUDGES: ORDER: Sofronoff P and Fraser JA and McMeekin J Appeal against conviction is dismissed. CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL INCONSISTENT VERDICTS where the appellant was charged on indictment with three offences of rape against the same complainant where the offences were alleged to have been committed during the same evening where the appellant came home drunk wanting to have sex with the complainant where the complainant was awoken in the lounge room and told to move to a bedroom by the appellant where the complainant did so after telling the appellant that she did not want to have sex where the complainant moved to the bedroom because she did not want to have sex in front of the children where the jury found the appellant guilty of count 1 and not guilty of counts 2 and 3 where the appellant has appealed against the conviction on count 1 on the grounds that it was unreasonable as it was inexplicably inconsistent with the acquittals on counts 2 and 3 whether there was a rational explanation for the acquittal on counts 2 and 3 whether the conviction on count 1 was impermissibly inconsistent with the acquittal on counts 2 and 3 CRIMINAL LAW APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE APPEAL DISMISSED where the appellant was charged on indictment with three offences of rape against the same complainant where the offences

2 COUNSEL: SOLICITORS: 2 were alleged to have been committed during the same evening where the appellant came home drunk wanting to have sex with the complainant where the complainant was awoken in the lounge room and told to move to a bedroom by the appellant where the complainant did so after telling the appellant that she did not want to have sex where the complainant moved to the bedroom because she did not want to have sex in front of the children where the complainant had protested and tried to push the appellant s hand away during the commission of count 1 where the appellant has appealed against the conviction on the grounds that it was unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence whether it was reasonably open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty CRIMINAL LAW APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE APPEAL DISMISSED where the complainant gave evidence on the first and second days of the trial where on the first day the trial judge had difficulty in hearing what the complainant said where the complainant explained that she suffered from a hearing impairment where the complainant was supplied with a hearing loop which appeared to solve the difficulties where the complainant could both hear and be heard on the second day of the trial where the complainant s evidence on the second day of the trial repeated her earlier evidence regarding her not consenting to the sexual acts where the appellant argued that portions of the complainant s evidence were particularly problematic because it must have been largely unheard by the jury whether the guilty verdict is unreasonable as the complainant s evidence was so fragile so as to render the conviction dangerous Criminal Code (Qld), s 668E(1) BCM v The Queen (2013) 88 ALJR 101; [2013] HCA 48, cited Hocking v Bell (1945) 71 CLR 430; [1945] HCA 16, cited M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35, cited MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35, cited SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, cited F D Richards for the appellant D Nardone for the respondent Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

3 3 [1] SOFRONOFF P: I agree with the reasons of Fraser JA and with the order his Honour proposes. [2] FRASER JA: The appellant was charged on indictment with three offences of rape against the same complainant. The offences were alleged to have been committed during the same evening. The particulars of the Crown case, as they were put to the jury by the trial judge in summing up, were that the appellant inserted his fingers into the complainant s vagina and/or vulva without her consent (count 1), the appellant inserted his penis into the vagina or vulva of the complainant without her consent (count 2), and the appellant inserted his penis into the mouth of the complainant without her consent (count 3). The jury found the appellant guilty of count 1 and not guilty of counts 2 and 3. [3] The appellant has appealed against the conviction on count 1 on the grounds that it was unreasonable as it was inexplicably inconsistent with the acquittals on counts 2 and 3, and it was otherwise unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence. The trial [4] As the trial judge commented in summing up to the jury, the real issues in each case appeared to be whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent and that the appellant did not do the alleged act under an honest and reasonable but mistaken belief that the complainant was consenting. [5] The complainant gave evidence on the first and second days of the trial. On the first day the trial judge had difficulty in hearing what the complainant said. The complainant herself had trouble hearing the prosecutor on many occasions. At the end of the first day s proceedings, the prosecutor said that, although at a previous trial he had no difficulty in the complainant hearing what he said, on this occasion she explained that she was deaf. The complainant was supplied with a hearing loop. That appeared to solve the difficulties. The complainant could both hear and be heard on the second day of the trial. [6] On the first day of the trial, the complainant referred to the appellant having woken her and told her to move from where she was asleep to go into a different room. (It appears from subsequent evidence that the complainant meant to convey that she was asleep in the lounge room and the appellant woke her and made her go into their bedroom to have sex.) The complainant said: [the appellant] went into the room and he I just told him to get off me not to have sex with me. I told him I don t want to have sex but [the appellant] put his finger in my vagina and I just lay there done it let him do it and and finger my vagina and I let him do it. Then, well, I just told him to get off me and didn t want to listen. And Ijust let him do it to me, let him have sexin front of my children. 1 [7] The complainant confirmed that this occurred in the front room (apparently a reference to the bedroom) and said that when the appellant put his finger in her 1 Transcript 25.

4 4 vagina, she just lay still and said and did nothing. The complainant gave evidence that she had had enough of sex because she had six children to the appellant. She gave evidence that the appellant had inserted his penis in her vagina (count 2). [8] On the second day of the trial, the complainant s evidence was given in more detail. She explained that the appellant came home drunk at 8.30 pm. He woke her in the lounge room wanting to have sex. The complainant told him that she did not want to have sex because I had the girls in the lounge. She said that she just kept telling the complainant that she did not want to have sex. The complainant continued: So I just got up just walked in I get up for him and wentinto the bedroom with him followed him to the bedi said I can t have sex with the girls in the lounge. So [the appellant]told me to get up and I went and followed him in the bedroom. And [the appellant] pulled out his I tried to sleep told him not to do it, but he just keep going, waking me up to have sex. And I just said No to him. Then he just, sort of, pulled his penis out and put it in my mouth. I just remember that part, and then I just keep telling him not to do it 2 [9] The complainant then said that the appellant woke her from just in the bedfrom the bedroom from the lounge room. When asked to tell the prosecutor about the room she was in when the appellant woke her, the complainant said that she was in the front room (the bedroom) and only the front room. The complainant gave this evidence: He just pulled my pants down when I was asleep. I told him I pushed his hand away and I told him not to have sex with me then he just keep going on and on about the sex, Yeah, give it to everybody else, couldn t give me sex, and I just had enough of it. The sex what he was doing with me, he sort of hurt me. 3 When asked about pushing the appellant s hand away, the complainant said that she just sort of pushed it away, told him not to do it. She said that the appellant s hand was in her pyjamas. She subsequently explained that this was a reference to her vagina. The complainant said that the appellant s fingers were into her body and I just sort of pushed him away, didn t want to have sex, that s all, to him. The complainant was asked whether the appellant was putting his fingers into her vagina. After answering, yes, she said that the appellant just keep want to have sex and I just keep telling him, I don t want have to sex, and it was too much for me for him, and I just keep telling him not to do it, keep doing it, and [the appellant] just hurt mehe does this all the time when he s drunk, when he s come home drunk, just want to have sex and I just keep telling him, No. No. No. In front of the children you can t have it in front of the children [10] The complainant then gave evidence that supported count 3 and count 2, referring to events in the bedroom. In that context, the prosecutor asked the complainant to say more about her having said no. She replied, I just keep telling [the appellant] that I just didn t want to have sex because it s just too much for me, I just keep telling him, telling him then I just got sick of it, but him, he sort of hurt me. 2 Transcript Transcript 37.

5 5 [11] The complainant gave evidence of the appellant having punched her on the following morning and of her having wanted to hurt herself because she was sick of it. The complainant then gave evidence relating to count 3. She referred to the appellant having his penis in her mouth and her just keep telling him, No, about the sex assault, about the sex what he was going to have to me. [12] In cross-examination, the complainant gave evidence that: when the appellant asked the complainant for sex, she did not want to have sex because her daughters were lying next to her on the mattress in the lounge room; the appellant went into the front room and she followed him; she went so she could have sex with the appellant in the front room; the complainant said He forced me to go with him and she agreed that she walked behind the appellant as he walked into the front room. She agreed that she knew that she was going to have sex in the front room. The complainant agreed with suggestions that the appellant put his penis into her vagina and afterwards into her mouth. She said she gave the appellant oral sex because he asked for it. She said that if she hadn t done so he would have told her to Give it to everybody else. [13] The complainant agreed that in the lounge room earlier in the night she told the appellant that she did not want to have sex and the appellant was touching her on her vagina trying to get her into the mood to have sex. That was about pm or 11 pm in the lounge room. The appellant relied particularly upon this passage: [the appellant] was trying to get you in the mood for sex, wasn t he? --- Yes. He was rubbing your vagina? --- Yes. And you told him you were too tired? --- Yes. And [the appellant] stopped, didn t he? --- Yes. So you both fell asleep? --- Well he took me into the room and I had to go follow him. I want to suggest that was later in the night. That was about 1.30, maybe 2 o clock in the morning? --- Yes. So you actually went to sleep in the lounge room and woke up later and then [the appellant] was still interested in trying to have sex with you, wasn t he? --- Yes. Yes. When you woke up, [the appellant] was keen to have sex again, wasn t he? --- Yes. And you said to him. Not having sex with you here with the kids? --- Yeah. your recollection is [the appellant] said, Let s go into the front room? [The appellant] woke me up and told me to go into the front room. I take it he was touching you again? --- Yes. And you told him, Not having sex here with the kids? --- Yes. And [the appellant] said, Let s go into the front room? --- Front room, yes. Yeah. And you followed him into the front room? --- Yes. I know that. Yeah? --- For sex? Yeah? --- If I didn t want to give [the appellant], then he would have went on about sex.

6 6 And once you got into the front room, [the appellant] started to do to get you in the mood? --- Mood, yes. Yeah? --- But I didn t want it. Whether you wanted it or not, did you you didn t, in fact, say anything to [the appellant], did you? --- No. 4 [14] The complainant subsequently agreed that she was silent when the appellant started to do sexual things. She said that she was scared. She agreed that throughout the whole time the appellant was having sex with her in the front room she was silent. She said that she did not want to wake up the children. [15] A doctor gave evidence in the Crown case that upon examination of the complainant shortly after the alleged offences were committed, the complainant had tenderness over the left side of her head. The doctor agreed in cross-examination that there were no other observable injuries and no other complaint of injury by the complainant to her. In re-examination the doctor explained that the absence of injuries in the genital region did not mean that there had not been sexual intercourse. The doctor s evidence is therefore not significant in this appeal. [16] There was evidence from two witnesses in the Crown case to the effect that, shortly after the offences were allegedly committed, the complainant was crying, walking with a rope in a bag, distressed, and complaining that the appellant had bashed her for sex. The respondent did not submit that this evidence supplied any support for the conviction on count 1, no doubt because the complainant did not give evidence that, before the alleged digital penetration the appellant had assaulted or threatened to assault her. She did give evidence that on the morning after the alleged offences, the appellant hit her in front of her daughters. The complainant gave evidence that she asked her daughter-in-law to ring the police, and that the complainant walked out of the house wanting to hang herself. The injury of which the doctor gave evidence and the evidence of the complainant s distressed condition may have been attributable to that alleged assault. In any event, the respondent did not rely upon that evidence in support of count 1. [17] The appellant did not give or call evidence. Consideration [18] The appellant accepted that the complainant s evidence was that she did not consent to the acts charged in counts 1, 2 and 3, but the appellant argued that the effect of her evidence also was that, after the appellant pestered her for sex, the complainant acquiesced in the appellant s suggestion that they leave the room where the children were sleeping and the complainant thereafter remained quiet and still while the appellant performed various acts in an attempt to get the complainant in the mood for sex. The appellant argued that this explained why the jury could not exclude beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant honestly and reasonably believed that the complainant consented to the acts charged in counts 2 and 3, but that there was no relevant difference in the evidence concerning the act charged in count 1. The appellant argued that the guilty verdict on count 1 was therefore unreasonable and inconsistent with the acquittals on counts 2 and 3. That was submitted to be so because those acquittals established that the jury must have accepted evidence that 4 Transcript

7 7 required them to acquit on count 1; 5 an explanation for the acquittals on counts 2 and 3 was that the jury had a doubt about the evidence of the complainant that she pushed the appellant s hand away, but the jury must have relied upon that evidence in finding the appellant guilty on count 1. [19] The appellant also argued that the guilty verdict is unreasonable as the complainant s evidence was so fragile so as to render the conviction dangerous. The evidence on day one was submitted to be particularly problematic, because it must have been largely unheard by the jury. It was submitted that this deprived the jury of the chance properly to weigh all of the complainant s evidence, a fact that that was important particularly because of the complainant s concessions to the effect that she complied with the appellant s requests. In that respect, the appellant argued that the evidence of the complainant was to the effect that she let the appellant put his finger in her vagina, she let him have sex with her, she did not say anything, she gave him sex twice although she did not want to, and the appellant s penis was in her vagina but nowhere else. The appellant also argued that, even if regard was not had to the complainant s evidence on the first day of the trial, her evidence on the second day of the trial ought to have left the jury with a reasonable doubt whether the Crown had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant did not honestly and reasonably consent to the act charged in count 1. [20] I accept the respondent s submission that the effect of the complainant s evidence on each of the first and second days of the trial was that she communicated to the appellant her lack of consent to count 1 immediately before the act of digital penetration charged in that count, but her evidence allowed room for the jury to think that the appellant might have honestly and reasonably, but mistakenly, believed the complainant consented to the other sexual conduct of the appellant. For that reason, if the jury did not clearly hear the complainant s evidence on the first day of the trial that did not prejudice the appellant. [21] The complainant s evidence on the first day of the trial unequivocally conveyed that the appellant digitally penetrated her vagina after she had made it clear that she did not want him to touch her in a sexual way: I just told him that I didn t want to move from the [indistinct] room to go into the room to have sex [indistinct] but he forced me. Yeah, [the appellant] went into the room and he I just told him to get off me not to have sex with me. I told him I don t want to have sex but [the appellant] put his finger in my vagina and I just lay there done it let him do it and He just sort of [indistinct] down and finger my vagina and I let him do it. Then, well, I just told him to get off me and didn t want to listen. And I just just let him do it to me let him have sex [indistinct] in front of my children. 5 The appellant cited Osland v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 316 at (McHugh J).

8 8 And what were you doing when he put his finger in your vagina? --- I just stay still and [indistinct]. 6 [22] In the following passage the complainant said that she was not saying or doing anything after the appellant digitally penetrated her. The appellant relied upon that evidence (which the complainant also repeated on the second day of the trial), but it did not preclude the jury from excluding any reasonable doubt that the appellant digitally penetrated the complainant s vagina after she had communicated to him that she did not consent to any such act. The jury could readily find that the complainant s subsequent silence during the continuing digital penetration resulted from the appellant having overborne her will in disregard of her initial protests and was in no way inconsistent with her evidence that she had voiced those protests. [23] On the first day of the trial, the complainant also gave evidence that she did not want to have sex with the appellant, but nevertheless acquiesced in other sexual conduct of the appellant after the appellant had digitally penetrated her vagina. (Again, that evidence was repeated on the second day.) A rational explanation for the acquittals on counts 2 and 3 is that the jury gave the appellant the benefit of the doubt whether he appreciated or should have appreciated that the complainant s initial protests to the digital penetration continued to subsist in relation to counts 2 and 3. [24] At the commencement of the complainant s evidence on the second day of the trial she repeated her earlier evidence to the effect that, when the appellant woke her in the lounge room indicating that he wanted to have sex, she made it plain that she did not consent. The complainant gave evidence that she just keep telling him, I don t want to have sex I said, I can t have sex with the girls in the lounge told him not to do it, but he just keep going, waking me up to have sex and I just said No, to him I just keep telling him not to do it I just keep telling him, No. No. No., because I have the girls with me. 7 Specifically in relation to count 1, the complainant gave evidence that when the appellant pulled her pants down when she was asleep she pushed his hand away and I told him not to have sex with me then he just keep going on and on about the sex. 8 [25] The appellant relied upon the complainant s evidence that she went with the appellant from the lounge room into the front room knowing that the appellant wished to have sex with her in the front room. In relation to count 1, however, the jury could reasonably regard the complainant s evidence as conveying that she went into the front room only because the appellant told her to go: He forced me to go with him he forced me to go into the front room. 9 [26] Furthermore, in the passage of cross-examination mentioned in [11] of these reasons, 10 it is significant that defence counsel did not refer to or clearly challenge the evidence earlier given by the complainant that the appellant had digitally penetrated her vagina after she had made it clear that she did not wish to engage in sexual relations with the appellant. The jury could regard the complainant s evidence in that passage as 6 Transcript Transcript Transcript Transcript Transcript 47.

9 9 contributing to a doubt only in relation to counts 2 and 3 whether the Crown had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant did not honestly and reasonably believe, albeit mistakenly, that the complainant consented to those acts acquiescing in them. [27] Notably, when the cross-examination apparently turned to count 1, defence counsel commenced with an acknowledgment that out in the lounge room earlier in the night you told him you didn t want to have sex 11 It was in that context that defence counsel put to the complainant that [the appellant] was touching you on your vagina trying to get you into the mood, with which the complainant agreed. 12 Similarly, a subsequent exchange in which the complainant agreed that the appellant stopped rubbing her vagina when she told him she was too tired occurred in the context of the complainant s evidence that she had earlier told the appellant that she did not want to have sex. 13 In neither of those passages did defence counsel put to the complainant that there was an error in her earlier evidence to the effect that she made it clear to the appellant that she objected to his sexual touching. [28] The appellant also relied upon the complainant s last answer in the passage in crossexamination quoted in [12] of these reasons 14 that, although the complainant said that she didn t want it, she didn t say anything to the appellant. However in that passage defence counsel referred to an occasion upon which the appellant touched the complainant again, 15 and the immediately following questions and answers suggest that this may have been a reference to the appellant engaging in the conduct charged in count The jury was in a distinctly better position than this Court to appreciate the effect of this ambiguous evidence given in answer to leading questions, but on its face it is not inconsistent with the complainant s repeated evidence that she voiced her opposition to the act in count 1. [29] In relation to the ground of appeal contending that the verdict on count 1 is inconsistent with the acquittals on counts 2 and 3, in MacKenzie v The Queen, 17 Gaudron, Gummow and Kirby JJ observed of cases involving alleged inconsistency between verdicts that the test is one of logic and reasonableness and that if there is a proper way by which the appellate court may reconcile the verdicts, allowing it to conclude that the jury performed their functions as required, that conclusion will generally be accepted. If there is some evidence to support the verdict said to be inconsistent, it is not the role of the appellate court, upon this ground, to substitute its opinion of the facts for one which was open to the jury. In this case, the differing verdicts are logically and reasonably reconcilable upon the footing that a reasonably open view of the complainant s evidence was that, although she clearly communicated to the appellant before the event that she did not consent to the digital penetration charged in count 1, her evidence allowed for a reasonably doubt whether the appellant might have honestly and reasonable, but mistakenly, believed that, by the complainant s apparent acquiescence in his subsequent sexual acts, she 11 Transcript 49/ Transcript 49/ Transcript 49/ Transcript 50/ Transcript 50/ Transcript 51/ (1996) 190 CLR 348 at 367.

10 10 consented to the acts charged in counts 2 and 3. This ground of appeal therefore fails. [30] As to the remaining ground of appeal, the principles to be applied in determining whether a verdict of a jury is unreasonable, or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence, are discussed in SKA v The Queen. 18 Even if there is evidence upon which a jury could convict, the conviction must be set aside if it would be dangerous in all the circumstances to allow the verdict of guilty to stand. 19 The Court must conduct an independent assessment of the sufficiency and quality of the evidence and decide whether, upon the whole of the evidence, it was reasonably open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the offence, but the starting point is that the jury is the body entrusted with the primary responsibility of determining guilt or innocence, and the jury has had the benefit of having seen and heard the witnesses ; and [i]n most cases a doubt experienced by an appellate court will be a doubt which a jury ought also to have experienced. It is only where a jury s advantage in seeing and hearing the evidence is capable of resolving a doubt experienced by a court of criminal appeal that the court may conclude that no miscarriage of justice occurred. 20 [31] In this appeal the respondent appropriately emphasised statements in MFA v The Queen 21 that stressed the special respect and legitimacy to be afforded to jury verdicts that resolved contested factual questions and referred to the ability of juries to evaluate conflicts and imperfections of evidence. More recently, in R v Baden-Clay 22 the High Court described it as fundamental to our system of criminal justice in relation to allegations of serious crimes tried by jury that the jury is the constitutional tribunal for deciding issues of fact and that the setting aside of a jury s verdict on the ground that it is unreasonable within the meaning of s 668E(1) of the Criminal Code is a serious step, not to be taken without particular regard to the advantage enjoyed by the jury over a court of appeal which has not seen or heard the witnesses called at trial. [32] For the reasons I have given, and bearing in mind the importance of a jury verdict and the advantage this jury had in seeing and hearing the evidence as it was given at the trial, I conclude that it was reasonably open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the offence charged in count 1. Proposed order [33] I would dismiss the appeal. [34] McMEEKIN J: I have read the reasons of Fraser JA and agree with the order his Honour proposes. 18 BCM v The Queen (2013) 88 ALJR 101 at [31], referring to SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400 at [11]-[14]. 19 SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400 at [14], quoting M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 at SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400 at [13], quoting M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 at (2002) 213 CLR 606 at 624, (2016) 258 CLR 308 at 239 [65].

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v MCE [2015] QCA 4 PARTIES: R v MCE (appellant) FILE NO: CA No 186 of 2014 DC No 198 of 2012 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Appeal against

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Hoet [2016] QCA 230 PARTIES: R v HOET, Reece Karaitana (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 64 of 2016 DC No 548 of 2016 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: Court of Appeal Appeal against

More information

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985. NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA82/2014 [2014] NZCA 304 BETWEEN AND TOESE

More information

Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. N M Dutch for Appellant I R Murray and R K Thomson for Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. N M Dutch for Appellant I R Murray and R K Thomson for Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT PURSUANT TO S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Maddison [2013] QCA 132 PARTIES: R v MADDISON, Steven Robert (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 328 of 2012 DC No 285 of 2012 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v S [2000] QCA 256 PARTIES: R v S (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 80 of 2000 DC No 80 of 1999 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Appeal against

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v RAX [2017] QCA 133 PARTIES: R v RAX (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 291 of 2016 DC No 224 of 2016 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Appeal

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v SCW [2018] QCA 10 PARTIES: R v SCW (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 104 of 2017 DC No 959 of 2016 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Appeal against

More information

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA FRENCH C, KIEFEL, BELL, GAGELER AND KEANE DANG KHOA NGUYEN APPELLANT AND THE QUEEN RESPONDENT Nguyen v The Queen [2013] HCA 32 27 une 2013 M30/2013 ORDER 1. Appeal allowed. 2. Set

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v M [2003] QCA 380 PARTIES: R v M (applicant/appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 92 of 2003 DC No 334 of 2003 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Appeal

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2006 BETWEEN: LAURIANO RAMIREZ Appellant AND THE QUEEN Respondent BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice Mottley President The Hon. Mr. Justice

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION,

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT PETERSON BALTAZARE SIMBERT, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D16-1633 [August 23, 2017] Appeal from the Circuit Court for

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 30, 2007

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 30, 2007 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 30, 2007 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. SCOTT G. CLEVENGER Appeal from the Circuit Court for Grainger County No. 4190 O. Duane

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA ,. I I: ' IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA (1) R,EPORTABLE: YES/ NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/ NO (3) REVISED a., 11 tidtf: a.t. DATE SIGNATURE CASE NUMBER: A178/16

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG) SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH WEST DIVISION,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN) 1 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Watt [2007] QCA 286 PARTIES: R v WATT, Gregory Thomas (appellant) FILE NO: CA No 122 of 2007 DC No 211 of 2007 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v SCG [2014] QCA 118 PARTIES: R v SCG (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 37 of 2014 DC No 59 of 2013 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Appeal against

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v MCQ [2018] QCA 160 PARTIES: R v MCQ (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 268 of 2017 SC No 1068 of 2017 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal DELIVERED

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v D [2002] QCA 445 PARTIES: R v D (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 189 of 2002 DC No 1351 of 2002 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Appeal against

More information

COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT [Cite as State v. Spell, 2009-Ohio-2562.] COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee -vs- CHARLES T. SPELL Defendant-Appellant JUDGES: Hon. William

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT RUBEN M. TIRADO, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D15-802 [May 3, 2017] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN. CASE NO: CA&R 361/2014 Date heard: 5 August 2015 Date delivered: 13 August 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN. CASE NO: CA&R 361/2014 Date heard: 5 August 2015 Date delivered: 13 August 2015 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE

More information

Mutua Mulundi v Republic [2005] eklr REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS

Mutua Mulundi v Republic [2005] eklr REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS Criminal Appeal 23 of 2003 (From Original conviction (s) and Sentence (s) in Criminal Case No. 720 of 2001 of the Resident Magistrate s Court at

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMPOPO HIGH COURT, THOHOYANDOU HELD AT THOHOYANDOU

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMPOPO HIGH COURT, THOHOYANDOU HELD AT THOHOYANDOU IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMPOPO HIGH COURT, THOHOYANDOU HELD AT THOHOYANDOU In the matter between: CASE NO: A15/2012 MPHO SIPHOLI MAKHIGI RAMULONDI KHUMBUDZO First Appellant Second Appellant

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Mag. Appeal No. 13 of 2011 BETWEEN DAVENDRA OUJAR Appellant AND P.C. DANRAJ ROOPAN #15253 Respondent PANEL: P. WEEKES, J A R. NARINE, J A Appearances: Mr. Jagdeo

More information

DAVID STANLEY TRANTER Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.

DAVID STANLEY TRANTER Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed. NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985 AND S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. IN THE

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA (CORAM: MUNUO, J.A., MASSATI, J.A And MANDIA, J.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 326 OF 2010 FURAHA MICHAEL...... APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC........ RESPONDENT (Appeal

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v D [2003] QCA 148 PARTIES: R v D (appellant/applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 207 of 2002 CA No 232 of 2002 DC No 163 of 2002 DIVISION: PROCEEDINGS: ORIGINATING COURT:

More information

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA ATTANGA {CORAM: MBAROUK, J.A., MWARIJA, J.A. And MWANGESI. J.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 391 of 2016 CHARLES JUMA............ APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC.......................

More information

ADDIE NKOSINGIPHILE SHABANGU

ADDIE NKOSINGIPHILE SHABANGU SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION,

More information

Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Winkelmann, Peters and Collins JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.

Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Winkelmann, Peters and Collins JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA508/2015 [2016] NZCA 138 BETWEEN AND MRINAL SARDANA Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 8 March 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Winkelmann, Peters and Collins

More information

EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO. CA & R 91/2017

EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO. CA & R 91/2017 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE AD 2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 19 OF BEFORE The Hon Mr Justice Sir Manuel Sosa

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE AD 2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 19 OF BEFORE The Hon Mr Justice Sir Manuel Sosa IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE AD 2015 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 19 OF 2013 MARVIN CRUZ REYES Appellant v THE QUEEN Respondent BEFORE The Hon Mr Justice Sir Manuel Sosa The Hon Mr Justice Samuel Awich The Hon

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Andreassen [2005] QCA 107 PARTIES: R v ANDREASSEN, Jonathon Baird (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 334 of 2004 SC No 29 of 2004 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:

More information

MOLOI, J et MOHALE, AJ

MOLOI, J et MOHALE, AJ SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION,

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT. Neutral citation: Madiba v The State (497/2013) [2014] ZASCA 13 (20 March 2014)

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT. Neutral citation: Madiba v The State (497/2013) [2014] ZASCA 13 (20 March 2014) SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) 1 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION,

More information

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Sherri T. Rollison, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Sherri T. Rollison, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA GERALD YARBROUGH, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE AD 2017 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 5 OF 2014

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE AD 2017 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 5 OF 2014 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE AD 2017 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 5 OF 2014 MAY BUSH Appellant v THE QUEEN Respondent BEFORE The Hon Mr Justice Sir Manuel Sosa The Hon Mr Justice Samuel Awich The Hon Mr Justice

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG) CASE NO: CA186/04. In the matter between: and FULL BENCH APPEAL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG) CASE NO: CA186/04. In the matter between: and FULL BENCH APPEAL In the matter between: IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG) CASE NO: CA186/04 NEO NGESI APPELLANT and THE STATE RESPONDENT FULL BENCH APPEAL MOGOENG JP; LANDMAN J & KGOELE

More information

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr M.E SETUMU COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT : ADV. NONTENJWA

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr M.E SETUMU COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT : ADV. NONTENJWA . Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to Magistrates: Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses

More information

CARL KIATIKA NGAWHIKA Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. J U Mooney for Appellant JEL Carruthers for Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

CARL KIATIKA NGAWHIKA Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. J U Mooney for Appellant JEL Carruthers for Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA297/2017 [2017] NZCA 535 BETWEEN AND CARL KIATIKA NGAWHIKA Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 15 November 2017 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Harrison, Lang and

More information

UNITED STATES NAVY MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES NAVY MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES NAVY MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS No. 201400356 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Appellee v. JEFFERY D. SAGER Aviation Ordnanceman Airman (E-3), U.S. Navy Appellant Appeal from the United

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee On Appeal from the Fayette County Court of Appeals, 12"' Appellate District

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee On Appeal from the Fayette County Court of Appeals, 12' Appellate District IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO : CASE NO. 08-1864 vs. Plaintiff-Appellee On Appeal from the Fayette County Court of Appeals, 12"' Appellate District EDWARD WELTON JR. Defendant-Appellant Court

More information

UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Before CAMPANELLA, HERRING, and PENLAND Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee v. Private First Class PETER GONZALEZ, JR. United States Army, Appellant

More information

JOHN ARCHIBALD BANKS Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent

JOHN ARCHIBALD BANKS Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA361/2016 [2017] NZCA 69 BETWEEN AND JOHN ARCHIBALD BANKS Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: Court: Counsel: Judgment: 15 February 2017 (with an application

More information

Through: Mr. Thakur Virender Pratap Singh Charak, Mr. Pushpender Charak, Amicus Curiae. versus. ... Respondent

Through: Mr. Thakur Virender Pratap Singh Charak, Mr. Pushpender Charak, Amicus Curiae. versus. ... Respondent IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENALCODE CRL.A. 475/2011 & Crl.M.B. 630/2011 (Suspension of sentence) Reserved on: 17th April, 2012 Decided on: 4th July, 2012 VINOD SHARMA...

More information

Cotton, T. (2010) 'Court of appeal: Confession evidence and the circumstances requiring a voir dire', Journal of Criminal Law, 74 (5), pp

Cotton, T. (2010) 'Court of appeal: Confession evidence and the circumstances requiring a voir dire', Journal of Criminal Law, 74 (5), pp TeesRep - Teesside's Research Repository Court of appeal: Confession evidence and the circumstances requiring a voir dire Item type Authors Citation DOI Publisher Journal Additional Link Rights Article

More information

JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 18 MARCH The two appellants were charged in the Wynberg Regional Court with

JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 18 MARCH The two appellants were charged in the Wynberg Regional Court with IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) APPEAL CASE NO.: A350/09 In the matter between: PHILIP CORNELIUS NICOLAS PLAATJIE First Appellant Second Appellant and THE STATE Respondent

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA 385/97 THE QUEEN

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA 385/97 THE QUEEN IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA 385/97 THE QUEEN v CLIFFORD ANDREW RODGER CoramEichelbaum CJ Tipping J Goddard J Hearing 30 April 1998 Counsel H Croft for Appellant S P France for Crown Judgment

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v RBA [2018] QCA 338 PARTIES: R v RBA (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 250 of 2018 DC No 35 of 2018 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Appeal against

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WILLIAMS COUNTY. Court of Appeals No. WM Appellee Trial Court No.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WILLIAMS COUNTY. Court of Appeals No. WM Appellee Trial Court No. [Cite as State v. Robbins, 2012-Ohio-3862.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WILLIAMS COUNTY State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WM-11-012 Appellee Trial Court No. 10 CR 103 v. Barry

More information

THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ORS Respondents

THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ORS Respondents NOTE: ORDER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL AND OF THE HIGH COURT PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH RESPONDENTS AND THE SECOND RESPONDENT'S

More information

George Hezron Mwakio v Republic [2010] eklr. REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Criminal Appeal 169 of 2008

George Hezron Mwakio v Republic [2010] eklr. REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Criminal Appeal 169 of 2008 REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Criminal Appeal 169 of 2008 GEORGE HEZRON MWAKIO...APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT The Appellant herein GEORGE HEZRON MWAKIO has

More information

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES. Airman First Class COREY L. PAYTON United States Air Force ACM

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES. Airman First Class COREY L. PAYTON United States Air Force ACM UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES v. Airman First Class COREY L. PAYTON United States Air Force 17 June 2013 Sentence adjudged 1 October 2010 by GCM convened at Aviano Air

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. HOWARD WESLEY WEEDON, Appellant No. 2032 MDA 2014 Appeal from

More information

RENDERED: AUGUST 30, 2002; 10:00 a.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED NO CA MR COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY OPINION AFFIRMING ** ** ** ** **

RENDERED: AUGUST 30, 2002; 10:00 a.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED NO CA MR COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY OPINION AFFIRMING ** ** ** ** ** RENDERED: AUGUST 30, 2002; 10:00 a.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED C ommonwealth Of K entucky Court Of A ppeals NO. 2001-CA-002226-MR JAMES ROBINSON APPELLANT APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE JOHN

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between Not Reportable CASE NO 444/2006 N E VHENGANI Appellant and THE STATE Respondent Coram: Nugent, Jafta JJA and Snyders AJA Heard: 21 MAY

More information

BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL

BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2016] NZREADT 78 READT 042/16 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND An application to review a decision of the Registrar pursuant to section 112 of the Real

More information

Eleventh Court of Appeals

Eleventh Court of Appeals Opinion filed August 5, 2010 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals No. 11-09-00041-CR ARNOLD P. POWERS, Appellant V. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4 Tarrant County,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA. (CORAM: LUBUVA, J.A., MROSO, J.A., And RUTAKANGWA, J.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA. (CORAM: LUBUVA, J.A., MROSO, J.A., And RUTAKANGWA, J.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA (CORAM: LUBUVA J.A, MROSO, J.A, RUTAKANGWA) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 95 OF 2005 RASHID SEBA. APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC.. RESPONDENT (Appeal from the judgment of

More information

No. 1D On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County. John H. Skinner, Judge. April 18, 2018

No. 1D On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County. John H. Skinner, Judge. April 18, 2018 FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL LEO C. BETTEY JR., Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D17-0064 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County. John H. Skinner, Judge. April

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Warradoo [2014] QCA 299 PARTIES: R v WARRADOO, Charles Christopher (appellant/applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 274 of 2013 SC No 31 of 2013 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING

More information

ARBITRATION SUBJECT. Appeal of termination for violation of found property policy. ISSUES CHRONOLOGY SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

ARBITRATION SUBJECT. Appeal of termination for violation of found property policy. ISSUES CHRONOLOGY SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Glendon #4 ARBITRATION EMPLOYER, INC. -and EMPLOYEE Termination Appeal SUBJECT Appeal of termination for violation of found property policy. ISSUES Was Employee terminated for just cause? CHRONOLOGY Termination:

More information

JOSEPH MWAMBA KALENGA. SAKALA, CJ, MUYOVWE and MUSONDA, JJS On the 6 th December, 2011 and 8 th May, 2012

JOSEPH MWAMBA KALENGA. SAKALA, CJ, MUYOVWE and MUSONDA, JJS On the 6 th December, 2011 and 8 th May, 2012 IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR ZAMBIA HOLDEN AT NDOLA (Criminal Jurisdiction) SCZ/103/2011 BETWEEN: JOSEPH MWAMBA KALENGA APPELLANT VS THE PEOPLE RESPONDENT Coram: SAKALA, CJ, MUYOVWE and MUSONDA, JJS On the

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MBEYA (CORAM: MSOFFE, J.A., MBAROUK, J.A., And MANDIA, J.A.)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MBEYA (CORAM: MSOFFE, J.A., MBAROUK, J.A., And MANDIA, J.A.) Dr. Moses Norbert Achiula versus Republic IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MBEYA (CORAM: MSOFFE, J.A., MBAROUK, J.A., And MANDIA, J.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 63 OF 2012 MOSES NORBERT ACHIULA.APPELLANT

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v McPherson [2002] QCA 401 PARTIES: R v McPHERSON, Terri Ann (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 118 of 2002 DC No 39 of 2002 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA MEDIA SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL FROM The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal DATE 29 September 2015 STATUS Immediate Negondeni

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA 196/97

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA 196/97 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA 196/97 THE QUEEN v IAN CHARLES PHIPPS Coram: Hearing: Counsel: Gault J Anderson J Robertson J 19 August 1997 (at Auckland) R. Asher QC and J.H. Wiles for Appellant

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 103 OF 2006- COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA- RAMADHANI, C.J., MROSO, J.A. And, KAJI J.A. NYEKA KOU Vs. REPUBLIC (Appeal from the Decision of the High Court of Tanzania at Arusha)-

More information

Rajen Hanumunthadu v The state and the independent commission against corruption SCJ 288 Judgment delivered on 01 September 2010 This was an

Rajen Hanumunthadu v The state and the independent commission against corruption SCJ 288 Judgment delivered on 01 September 2010 This was an Rajen Hanumunthadu v The state and the independent commission against corruption. 2010 SCJ 288 Judgment delivered on 01 September 2010 This was an appeal from the Intermediate Court where the Appellant

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Dawson v Jewiss; Thompson v Jewiss [2004] QCA 374 PARTIES: STUART BEVAN DAWSON (plaintiff/respondent) v HENRY WILLIAM JEWISS also known as HARRY JEWISS (defendant/appellant)

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Buchan v Nominal Defendant [2012] QCA 136 PARTIES: JOHN DAVID BUCHAN (appellant) v NOMINAL DEFENDANT (respondent) FILE NO/S: Appeal No 11763 of 2011 SC No 7075 of

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CR. ANTHONY SHANE KILLEBREW, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CR. ANTHONY SHANE KILLEBREW, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee MODIFY and AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed March 16, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01511-CR ANTHONY SHANE KILLEBREW, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Reitano v Shearer & Anor [2014] QCA 336 PARTIES: MONICA-LEIGH REITANO (appellant) v BENJAMIN JOHN SHEARER (first respondent) RACQ INSURANCE LIMITED ABN 50 009 704

More information

UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Before BURTON, HAGLER, and FLEMING Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee v. Private First Class DAYLON R. SANDERS United States Army, Appellant

More information

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES. Staff Sergeant WALTER M. PATTON IV United States Air Force ACM S30426

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES. Staff Sergeant WALTER M. PATTON IV United States Air Force ACM S30426 UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES v. Staff Sergeant WALTER M. PATTON IV United States Air Force 8 February 2006 Sentence adjudged 17 May 2003 by SPCM convened at Fort George

More information

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas Opinion issued October 17, 2013 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-12-00664-CR NO. 01-12-00665-CR JUNIOR GARVEY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the

More information

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL RS and SS (Exclusion of appellant from hearing) Pakistan [2008] UKAIT 00012 ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House Date of Hearing: 18 December 2007 Before: Mr C M G

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED KARIM CLARKE, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D16-1986

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Reportable: Of Interest to other Judges: Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO YES/NO YES/NO Case No.: A18/2017 In the appeal between: STEVE

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON. STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ANTONIO BRIGGS

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON. STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ANTONIO BRIGGS IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ANTONIO BRIGGS Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 96-09730, W. Fred Axley, Trial Judge No. W1999-00280-CCA-R3-CD

More information

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES. Senior Airman RORY M. DURAN United States Air Force ACM

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES. Senior Airman RORY M. DURAN United States Air Force ACM UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES v. Senior Airman RORY M. DURAN United States Air Force 28 August 2014 Sentence adjudged 10 June 2013 by GCM convened at Holloman Air Force

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Glasgow Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 26 November 2015 On 31 March Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DEANS.

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Glasgow Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 26 November 2015 On 31 March Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DEANS. Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/08210/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Glasgow Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 26 November 2015 On 31 March 2016 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL

More information

Ezekiel Wafula v Republic [2005] eklr REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA

Ezekiel Wafula v Republic [2005] eklr REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA Criminal Appeal 36 of 2004 (1) Arising from Webuye SRM Cr. Case no. 155 of 2003 EZEKIEL WAFULA..APPELLANT VS REPUBLIC..RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T

More information

IN HER MAJESTY S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND THE QUEEN NOEL JESUS FORONDA. Before Morgan LCJ, Girvan LJ and Coghlin LJ

IN HER MAJESTY S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND THE QUEEN NOEL JESUS FORONDA. Before Morgan LCJ, Girvan LJ and Coghlin LJ Neutral Citation No. [2014] NICA 17 Ref: COG9179 Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered: 25/02/2014 (subject to editorial corrections)* IN HER MAJESTY S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN

More information

PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.

PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985. PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA563/2008 [2009] NZCA 145 THE QUEEN v WAYNE ALEXANDER

More information

S18A1609. STANFORD v. THE STATE. evidence was presented to support a finding of guilt. For the reasons that

S18A1609. STANFORD v. THE STATE. evidence was presented to support a finding of guilt. For the reasons that In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: March 4, 2019 S18A1609. STANFORD v. THE STATE. BENHAM, Justice. In February 2015, Appellant Larry Stanford was convicted of two counts of malice murder in connection

More information

UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C.

UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. Before J.A. FISCHER, K.M. MCDONALD, D.C. KING Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. BLAS M. ESCAMILLA PRIVATE

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Cr.A. No. 26 of 2001 BETWEEN EARLE CHARLES APPELLANT AND THE STATE RESPONDENT Panel: R. Hamel-Smith, J.A. L. Jones, J.A. A. Lucky, J.A. Appearances

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. FELIX GARZON, Appellant No. 492 EDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment

More information

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE PERSON NAMED VERONICA IN THIS JUDGMENT.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE PERSON NAMED VERONICA IN THIS JUDGMENT. NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS NAMED OLIVIA AND KIRSTEN IN THIS JUDGMENT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011 AND S 139 OF

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA. (CORAM: LUBUVA, J.A., MROSO, J.A., And RUTAKANGWA, J.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA. (CORAM: LUBUVA, J.A., MROSO, J.A., And RUTAKANGWA, J.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA [CORAM: LUBUVA, J.A MROSSO, JA; RUTAKANGWA, J.A] CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 151 OF 2005 NGASA MADINA APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC.. RESPONDENT (Appeal from the High

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Bisht [2013] QCA 238 PARTIES: R v BISHT, Anirudh (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 312 of 2012 DC No 70 of 2012 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal

More information

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA FRENCH C, KIEFEL AND BELL TERRENCE OHN DIEHM & ANOR APPELLANTS AND DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (NAURU) RESPONDENT Diehm v Director of Public Prosecutions (Nauru) [2013] HCA

More information

Before: The Honourable Mr. C. M. Dennis Byron Chief Justice (Ag.) The Honourable Mr. Satrohan Singh Justice of Appeal

Before: The Honourable Mr. C. M. Dennis Byron Chief Justice (Ag.) The Honourable Mr. Satrohan Singh Justice of Appeal ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3 OF 1997 BETWEEN: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CONFESOR VALDEZ FRANCO APPELLANT and RESPONDENT THE QUEEN Before: The Honourable Mr. C. M. Dennis Byron Chief Justice (Ag.)

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between: Appeal number: A242/2015 S.P. LETEANE Appellant and THE STATE Respondent HEARD ON: 29 FEBRUARY 2016 CORAM: MOCUMIE,

More information