Weatherall, S.E. v The Queen [1987] FCA 506

Weatherall, S.E. v The Queen [1987] FCA 506

The directions on murder and jury deliberations disclosed no error: intention to inflict grievous bodily harm was open on the evidence, and the jury was not improperly pressured. Hagen's sentence was not manifestly inadequate. Weatherall's conviction under s.349 was valid because s.349 and s.6 created different offences and, in any event, ss.11(1) and 11(1A) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) preserved prosecution under either applicable law.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 September 1987
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeals From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence; Crown Appeal Against Sentence; Cross Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Weatherall's appeal was dismissed. The Queen's appeal against Hagen's sentence and Hagen's cross-appeal against conviction were dismissed.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'accessory After the Fact to Murder' 'jury Deliberations and Discharge' 'intention to Inflict Grievous Bodily Harm' 'inconsistency Between Territory and Commonwealth Offences' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'statutory Interpretation' 'sentencing'] ['murder' 'accessory After the Fact to Murder' 'jury Deliberations and Discharge' 'intention to Inflict Grievous Bodily Harm' 'inconsistency Between Territory and Commonwealth Offences' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeals From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence; Crown Appeal Against Sentence; Cross Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was open to the jury to find that Hagen intended to inflict grievous bodily harm on the deceased.' "Whether the trial judge's remarks to the jury after about six hours of deliberation created improper pressure or a risk of distortion of the verdict." 'Whether Weatherall could be charged under s.349 of the Crimes Act 1900 (N.S.W.) in its application to the Australian Capital Territory despite s.6 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.).' 'Whether the sentence imposed on Hagen for murder was manifestly inadequate.' "Whether Weatherall's sentence exceeded the maximum penalty under s.6 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.)."]

Ratio Decidendi

The directions on murder and jury deliberations disclosed no error: intention to inflict grievous bodily harm was open on the evidence, and the jury was not improperly pressured. Hagen's sentence was not manifestly inadequate. Weatherall's conviction under s.349 was valid because s.349 and s.6 created different offences and, in any event, ss.11(1) and 11(1A) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) preserved prosecution under either applicable law.

Court Disposition

Weatherall's appeal was dismissed. The Queen's appeal against Hagen's sentence and Hagen's cross-appeal against conviction were dismissed.

Orders

  • ['In ACT G23 of 1987, the appeal be dismissed.' 'In ACT G24 of 1987, the appeal and cross-appeal be dismissed.']