Draper v The Queen

[2000] WASCA 160

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Appeal against conviction
4. › Grounds of appeal
5. › Whether ruling on no case to answer is a proper ground of appeal against conviction
6. › Criminal Code (WA), s 688(1)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Appeal against conviction
4. › Directions to jury
5. › Specific intent
6. › Whether direction on intent to do grievous bodily harm adequate
7. › Whether distinction between intention and recklessness required
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Identification
4. › Photoboard identification
5. › Whether photoboard identification evidence should be admitted where identification parade not attempted
6. › Effect of formal admission of identity on ground of appeal
1. Criminal Law
2. › Trial
3. › No case to answer
4. › Circumstantial evidence case
5. › Test for sufficiency of evidence
6. › Whether evidence capable of supporting inference of specific intent

Quick Take

Under the Criminal Code (WA), s 688, a ground of appeal challenging the trial judge's ruling on a no case to answer submission is not a competent ground of appeal against conviction; the proper inquiry is the sufficiency of the evidence in its entirety to sustain the conviction. Photoboard identification evidence should only be led where unavoidable and where a more preferable form of identification is not practicable, but a formal admission of identity renders any error in admitting such evidence immaterial. The question whether an appellate court reviewing a no case ruling should consider only the prosecution evidence or all the evidence remains open in Australia.