Liddington v WA

(2005) 152 A Crim R 502; [2005] WASCA 60

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Jury request to hear evidence
4. › Reading transcript to jury
5. › Whether 'evidence' includes cross-examination and re-examination
6. › Whether reading only evidence-in-chief constitutes error
7. › Whether unfairness resulting in miscarriage of justice
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sexual offences
3. › Complaint
4. › Delay in making complaint
5. › Whether trial judge required to direct jury on forensic prejudice from delay
6. › Distinction between Longman warning and judicial comment
7. › Whether direction required where delay relatively short
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › State appeal against sentence
4. › Sexual offences against children
5. › Intrafamilial sexual abuse
6. › Suspended sentence
7. › Whether manifestly inadequate
8. › Role of lack of remorse where accused maintains innocence
9. › Double jeopardy on State appeal
10. › Cumulation of sentences for separate offences

Quick Take

When a jury requests to hear the evidence of a witness relating to particular counts, the trial judge should read the whole of the evidence (including cross-examination and re-examination), not merely the evidence-in-chief; failure to do so is an error, though it may not result in a miscarriage of justice depending on the content of the omitted material. There is no legal requirement for a trial judge to direct a jury on forensic prejudice from delay in complaint in every case; the obligation depends on the circumstances including the length of delay and the nature of the alleged prejudice. A sentencing judge who is bound to act on a jury's guilty verdict cannot treat the offender's lack of remorse as neutral merely because the offender maintains innocence; the lack of remorse must be taken into account as detracting from rehabilitation prospects and the mitigatory effect of good character.