Truong v WA

[2006] WASCA 1

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Directions to jury
3. › Good character direction
4. › Whether direction adequately addressed credibility and propensity limbs
5. › Whether redirection cured initial omission
6. › Whether qualifying remarks disturbed balance of direction
1. Criminal Law
2. › Directions to jury
3. › Circumstantial evidence
4. › Inference direction
5. › Whether customary direction required where circumstantial evidence relied on to prove intention
6. › Whether direction that guilt must be only rational inference necessary or merely helpful
7. › Criminal Code (WA), ss 7, 8
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Hearsay
4. › Inadmissible hearsay admitted at trial
5. › Whether substantial miscarriage of justice
6. › Application of proviso
7. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 30(4)

Quick Take

The customary inference direction (that guilt must be the only rational inference) is not required in every case involving circumstantial evidence; it depends on whether there is a live question on the evidence as to competing inferences. Where the State relies solely on circumstantial evidence to prove intention and there is a real question whether more than one rational inference is open, there is a strong argument the direction is required (per McLure JA, dissenting on this point). The admission of vague and limited inadmissible hearsay evidence will not constitute a substantial miscarriage of justice where the evidence is peripheral and the trial judge gives adequate general directions.