WGC v The Queen [2007] HCA 58

WGC v The Queen [2007] HCA 58

The Court was divided. The majority (Hayne, Heydon, and Crennan JJ) held that the date of the offence was not a material particular requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt as an element of the offence under s 49(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), because the statutory definition articulated the offence by age range rather than date, and the trial was conducted on the basis that the particular date was not material. Therefore, verdicts were not void for uncertainty even if different jurors may have relied on differing reasoning as to the date, since the acts and elements were admitted and only the defence under s 49(4) remained in issue. The minority (Kirby J and Gummow J...

Parties
Appellant: WGC; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court of Australia Decision on Appeal From the Supreme Court of South Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (by majority)
Legal Topics
Unlawful Sexual Intercourse, Elements of Offence, Defence Under S 49(4) Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (sa), Particulars of Offence, Jury Unanimity, Jury Verdicts, Duplicity, Sentencing Based on Alternative Factual Bases
Criminal Law Unlawful Sexual Intercourse Elements of Offence Defence Under S 49(4) Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (sa) Particulars of Offence Jury Unanimity Jury Verdicts Duplicity +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WGC

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court of Australia Decision on Appeal From the Supreme Court of South Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the date of the offence was a material particular requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt
  2. 2 Whether different jurors could convict on different factual bases leading to uncertainty or duplicity in the verdicts
  3. 3 Whether there was a miscarriage of justice due to the way the trial was conducted and directions were given

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was divided. The majority (Hayne, Heydon, and Crennan JJ) held that the date of the offence was not a material particular requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt as an element of the offence under s 49(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), because the statutory definition articulated the offence by age range rather than date, and the trial was conducted on the basis that the particular date was not material. Therefore, verdicts were not void for uncertainty even if different jurors may have relied on differing reasoning as to the date, since the acts and elements were admitted and only the defence under s 49(4) remained in issue. The minority (Kirby J and Gummow J...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (by majority)

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed