Court of Criminal Appeal Citation : Carroll v WA

[2004] WASCA 254

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sexual offences
3. › Appeal against conviction
4. › Inconsistent verdicts
5. › Acquittal on some counts and conviction on others involving same complainant
6. › Whether verdicts unreasonable or unsupported by evidence
7. › Whether honest and reasonable but mistaken belief in consent could explain different verdicts
8. › Criminal Code (WA), s 24
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sexual offences
3. › Appeal against conviction
4. › Longman direction
5. › Whether warning required as to danger of convicting on uncorroborated evidence of complainant
6. › Whether forensic disadvantage to accused
7. › Whether circumstances not apparent to jury required judicial direction
8. › Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 50
1. Criminal Law
2. › Trial
3. › Summing-up
4. › Obligation to put defence case
5. › Whether trial judge adequately directed jury on defence case
6. › Whether failure to identify counts denied by accused resulted in miscarriage of justice

Quick Take

Where a jury acquits on some counts and convicts on others involving the same complainant, the verdicts may be reconciled if the jury could rationally have had a reasonable doubt about the accused's honest and reasonable but mistaken belief in consent (s 24 Criminal Code WA) on the acquitted counts while being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of no such belief on the convicted counts, even where the accused's case at trial was actual consent rather than mistaken belief. A Longman direction is not required where the delay is short (here, two months), there is no forensic disadvantage to the accused, and the circumstances bearing on the complainant's credibility are apparent to the jury without judicial direction.