1On a refusal to adjourn a trial so the accused can have counsel of choice, the question is not whether the accused would have preferred other counsel but whether the refusal deprived the accused of a fair trial. On the facts, there was no such deprivation where experienced counsel considered himself adequately prepared for a straightforward trial and the accused had had four months' notice that his preferred counsel was unavailable.
2Where identification is the central issue, evidence that the complainant recognised the offender by a nickname, and that the accused bore that nickname, is admissible and critically relevant even if the nickname carries a pejorative meaning. On the facts, it could not have been excluded, and experienced trial counsel had deliberately sought neither editing nor a direction.
3A complaint that defence witnesses were not called cannot succeed where the applicant does not identify the witnesses or their evidence, and where the decision not to call them was made by counsel after consulting the applicant.
Case Details
Citation[2005] WASCA 218
CourtWASCA
JurisdictionWestern Australia
Unlock so much more with Barrister AI
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
