Following the enactment of s 50 of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA), it is not necessary and generally not desirable for trial judges to use the word 'corroboration' in accomplice warnings; the preferred approach is a two-part warning addressing the dangers inherent in the accomplice's evidence and the types of independent supporting evidence available. The credit/issue distinction in prior inconsistent statement cases applies equally in sexual and non-sexual cases. A circumstantial evidence direction is not required where the Crown case relies on direct evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 22 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 22 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.