King, B.C. v. The Queen [1986] FCA 386

King, B.C. v. The Queen [1986] FCA 386

The trial judge's summing up misdirected the jury by implying they could draw an adverse inference against the appellant from his silence during the police interview and by inadequate directions regarding the jury's approach if they rejected the alibi. This misdirection deprived the appellant of a fair chance of acquittal. As for sentence, the total period of imprisonment imposed for the offences on 11 April and 8 May 1985 was not manifestly excessive and the cumulative structure was within power under the legislative regime applicable at the time.

Parties
Appellant: Barry Charles King; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 September 1986
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Armed Robbery, Assault, Identification Evidence, Alibi, Jury Directions, Concurrent and Cumulative Sentences, Appeal Against Conviction, Appeal Against Sentence
Criminal Law Armed Robbery Assault Identification Evidence Alibi Jury Directions Concurrent and Cumulative Sentences Appeal Against Conviction +1 more

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 7 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barry Charles King

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury regarding the accused's silence during police interview and the alibi
  2. 2 Whether the aggregate sentences imposed were excessive or unlawful under relevant sentencing legislation
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge had the power to order cumulative sentences in the specific circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's summing up misdirected the jury by implying they could draw an adverse inference against the appellant from his silence during the police interview and by inadequate directions regarding the jury's approach if they rejected the alibi. This misdirection deprived the appellant of a fair chance of acquittal. As for sentence, the total period of imprisonment imposed for the offences on 11 April and 8 May 1985 was not manifestly excessive and the cumulative structure was within power under the legislative regime applicable at the time.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part

Orders

  • Appeals in matters No. A.C.T. G63 and G65 of 1985 (against sentences for offences committed on 11 April and 8 May 1985) dismissed.
  • Appeal in matter No. A.C.T. G64 of 1985 allowed.