Mjh v WA

(2006) 33 WAR 9; [2006] WASCA 167

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Evidence
2. › Collateral evidence rule
3. › Prior inconsistent statements
4. › Whether statements relative to subject-matter of proceeding
5. › Whether admissible under s 21 Evidence Act 1906 (WA)
6. › Distinction between relevance to facts in issue and relevance to credit only
7. › Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 21
1. Evidence
2. › Collateral evidence rule
3. › Exceptions
4. › Bias, interest or corruption
5. › Whether complainant's relationship with mother established motive to fabricate
6. › Whether adequate foundation laid in cross-examination
1. Evidence
2. › Collateral evidence rule
3. › Sexual offences
4. › Whether distinction between credit and facts in issue reduced to vanishing point
5. › Whether collateral evidence rule should be relaxed where credibility inextricably linked to facts in issue
1. Criminal Law and Procedure
2. › Appeal
3. › Inconsistent verdicts
4. › Factual inconsistency
5. › Sexual offences
6. › Multiple counts depending on complainant's testimony
7. › Whether acquittals on some counts rendered convictions on others unsafe
8. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 30(3)(a)

Quick Take

Prior inconsistent statements that concern the circumstances and consequences of an alleged offence (such as the manner of an assault) are relative to the subject-matter of the proceedings within s 21 of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) and are not merely collateral, even where they cannot prove the truth of the facts stated. However, prior inconsistent statements about matters unconnected to the facts in issue (such as the complainant's conduct with a third party that has no bearing on any element of the charged offences) remain collateral and inadmissible. The bias exception to the collateral evidence rule requires evidence capable of demonstrating a 'corrupt or other wrong motive' — a general bad relationship between a complainant and a family member, without more, is insufficient. The proposition that in sexual cases the distinction between credit and facts in issue is reduced to vanishing point is not good law in Western Australia.