Garrett v Nicholson

(1999) 21 WAR 226; [1999] WASCA 32

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Evidence
2. › Witnesses
3. › Cross-examination
4. › Rule in Browne v Dunn
5. › Application in Courts of Petty Sessions
6. › Extent of obligation to put case to opposing witnesses
7. › Whether plea of not guilty gives sufficient notice that prosecution evidence is in contest
8. › Prevention of Collisions at Sea Regulations 1983 (WA)
1. Evidence
2. › Witnesses
3. › Cross-examination
4. › Rule in Browne v Dunn
5. › Weight of unchallenged evidence
6. › Whether evidence not cross-examined on must be accepted
7. › Limited application in criminal proceedings
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Magistrates
3. › Duty to give reasons
4. › Adequacy of reasons
5. › Whether reasons disclosed intellectual process leading to decision
6. › Whether failure to refer to particular witness's evidence rendered reasons inadequate
1. Criminal Law
2. › Summary offences
3. › Prosecution for failure to maintain proper lookout at sea
4. › Collision at sea at night
5. › Whether lights could be seen
6. › Standard of proof
7. › Indispensable intermediate facts must be proved beyond reasonable doubt

Quick Take

The rule in Browne v Dunn applies in Courts of Petty Sessions in Western Australia, but with significant limitations: a plea of not guilty itself gives notice that evidence proving elements of the offence is in contest, so the proposition that unchallenged evidence must be accepted does not apply to such evidence or to indispensable intermediate facts. Defence counsel are not required to put formulaic challenges such as 'I put it to you that is false' to prosecution witnesses. Magistrates' reasons are adequate if they disclose the intellectual process leading to the decision, even if they do not address every witness's evidence individually.