R v Punevski

[2001] WASCA 121

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Jury trial
3. › Direction to acquit
4. › Whether trial judge directed jury to return verdict of acquittal
5. › Whether remarks amounted to direction within s 688(2)(b) Criminal Code (WA)
6. › Criminal Code (WA), s 688(2)(b)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Jury trial
3. › Sufficiency of evidence
4. › No case to answer
5. › Whether evidence capable of sustaining conviction
6. › Possession of prohibited drugs with intent to sell or supply
7. › Identification of exhibits
8. › Chain of custody
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Crown appeal against acquittal
4. › Jurisdiction of Court of Criminal Appeal
5. › Verdict found by direction of judge
6. › Criminal Code (WA), s 688(2)(b)

Quick Take

A trial judge's remarks to a jury suggesting acquittal will constitute a 'direction' within s 688(2)(b) of the Criminal Code (WA) where, considered as a whole, the jury would inevitably understand they were being directed to acquit, even if the judge at times suggested the verdict remained a matter for the jury. The case illustrates the application of the Doney v The Queen sufficiency test: where the chain of identification between seized exhibits and analysed material is completely broken, there is no evidence capable of sustaining a conviction; but where there is some evidence of identification, even if weak, the matter must be left to the jury.