Noble v WA

[2005] WASCA 33

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Extension of time
4. › Difficulties in obtaining transcript
5. › Whether extension should be granted
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Appeal against conviction
4. › Adequacy of trial judge's directions to jury
5. › Onus and standard of proof
6. › Whether failure to use phrase 'presumption of innocence' constituted misdirection
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Appeal against conviction
4. › Adequacy of trial judge's directions to jury
5. › Liberato directions
6. › Whether direction required where co-accused blame each other
7. › Whether jury left with impression that resolution of conflict concluded issue of proof beyond reasonable doubt
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Parity principle
5. › Co-offenders with different levels of culpability
6. › Whether disparity in sentences gave rise to justifiable sense of grievance

Quick Take

There is no legal requirement that a trial judge use the specific phrase 'presumption of innocence' in directing a jury, provided the substance of the direction adequately conveys that the prosecution bears the onus of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Where co-accused blame each other through out-of-court statements, a Liberato direction is not required if the trial judge's directions as a whole make plain that the ultimate question is whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.