Mouritz v WA

[2006] WASCA 165

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Verdict
3. › Uncertainty of verdict
4. › Alternative bases of liability left to jury
5. › Whether jury must be unanimous as to route to verdict
6. › Deliberate act and criminal negligence as alternatives
7. › Criminal Code (WA), ss 23, 222, 223, 266, 313, 297
1. Criminal Law
2. › Indictment
3. › Duplicity
4. › Whether s 266 Criminal Code creates separate offence
5. › Whether indictment defective for failure to include s 266
6. › Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 85(2)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Duty of persons in charge of dangerous things
3. › Section 266 Criminal Code (WA)
4. › Whether applicable to assault charge
5. › Whether creates independent offence or constituent of other offences
1. Criminal Law
2. › Directions to jury
3. › Inference direction
4. › Absence of evidence distinguished from evidence of absence
5. › Whether trial judge erred in directing no inference from lack of evidence

Quick Take

Where alternative bases of criminal liability (deliberate act and criminal negligence) rest on the same or substantially the same factual basis and do not involve materially different issues or consequences, the jury need only be unanimous as to the verdict, not the reasoning path. Section 266 of the Criminal Code (WA) does not create a separate offence and need not appear on the indictment. Pullin JA expressed the obiter view that s 266 has no application to assault charges at all.