Where a trial involves multiple counts and an accomplice witness whose evidence is relevant to more than one count, the trial judge must clearly identify for the jury the evidence capable of corroborating the accomplice on each count separately. A general direction on corroboration that does not adequately distinguish between counts may result in the conviction being quashed. The case also confirms that the question of whether a person is a 'suspect' under s 23V(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) is assessed by reference to the investigating officer's state of mind and the circumstances at the time, and that officers attending to collect documents under a notice to produce are not necessarily interviewing a suspect.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.