Under s 112 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), a trial judge has a discretion as to the extent of observations about the evidence, and where the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence rather than identification, a detailed summary of identification evidence is not required and may be counterproductive. The range for conventional armed robbery prior to the 2003 amendments was 6 to 9 years' imprisonment. On a review under r 8 of the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), the Court of Appeal makes its own assessment of the grounds rather than requiring the applicant to demonstrate error, though this question was expressly left open for future reconsideration.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 16 later cases that cite this judgment.
7 of the 16 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.