Woon v The Queen [1964] HCA 23

Woon v The Queen [1964] HCA 23

Special leave was refused because the trial judge correctly directed the jury that no adverse inference could be drawn from refusals to answer, but that answers the applicant chose to give could be considered, in context, for any indication of consciousness of guilt. The interrogation evidence, together with associated facts including the applicant's false denial of knowing Radcliffe and the telegrams sent under false names and addresses, was capable of supporting the conviction and was properly left to the jury.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal in a Criminal Matter / High Court of Australia Application for Special Leave After Dismissal of Appeal by the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Application for special leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['breaking and Entering and Stealing' 'police Interrogation' 'admissions by Accused' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'refusal to Answer Questions' 'sufficiency of Evidence' 'special Leave to Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'appellate Procedure'] ['breaking and Entering and Stealing' 'police Interrogation' 'admissions by Accused' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'refusal to Answer Questions' 'sufficiency of Evidence' 'special Leave to Appeal']

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

Application for Special Leave to Appeal in a Criminal Matter / High Court of Australia Application for Special Leave After Dismissal of Appeal by the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the evidence against the applicant should have been left to the jury.' 'Whether the trial judge wrongly directed the jury that answers given by the applicant during police interrogation could be considered as indicating consciousness of guilt.' "Whether statements and questions put to an accused during interrogation may be used only to determine whether the accused adopted the facts stated, or may also be used to assess the accused's reactions as evidence of consciousness of guilt."]

Ratio Decidendi

Special leave was refused because the trial judge correctly directed the jury that no adverse inference could be drawn from refusals to answer, but that answers the applicant chose to give could be considered, in context, for any indication of consciousness of guilt. The interrogation evidence, together with associated facts including the applicant's false denial of knowing Radcliffe and the telegrams sent under false names and addresses, was capable of supporting the conviction and was properly left to the jury.

Court Disposition

Application for special leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Application for special leave to appeal refused.']