Herbert v The Queen

[2002] WASCA 362

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict
4. › Inconsistent verdicts
5. › Multiple counts involving single complainant
6. › Whether acquittals on some counts render convictions on other counts unreasonable
7. › Whether verdicts reconcilable on rational basis
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict
4. › Test for unreasonable verdict
5. › Whether open to jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt
6. › M v The Queen test
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Sexual offences
4. › Uncorroborated evidence of single complainant
5. › Longman warning
6. › Delay in complaint
7. › Whether jury entitled to accept evidence in part

Quick Take

The case confirms that in Western Australia, the test for inconsistent verdicts remains that stated in MacKenzie v The Queen as reaffirmed in MFA v The Queen: the question is unreasonableness, not inconsistency per se. Acquittals on counts involving offences against a person other than the complainant, or on counts where the jury may have misunderstood the legal elements, do not necessarily destroy the complainant's credibility on other counts. Jones v The Queen did not establish any new principle separate from the M v The Queen test.

Case Details

Citation[2002] WASCA 362

CourtWASCA

JurisdictionWestern Australia

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.

Cited by2

2004Court of Criminal Appeal Citation : Carroll v The State of Western AustraliaWASCA 254
2003Court of Criminal Appeal Citation : Stalker v The QueenWASCA 132

Relies on7

2002Mfa v RHCA 53
2001Spiteri v The QueenWASCA 82
2001R v MarkuleskiNSWCCA 290
2001R v DouglassNSWCCA 250
and 3 more after sign-in

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in