Featherston v WA

[2006] WASCA 269

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Appeal against conviction
4. › Unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict
5. › Whether evidence as a whole not sufficiently credible to support conviction
6. › Uncorroborated evidence of complainant
7. › Credibility assessment by jury
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Appeal against conviction
4. › Misdirection
5. › Whether trial judge erred in failing to direct jury regarding prejudicial statements
6. › Reference to accused as drug dealer
7. › Whether direction required where defence counsel did not seek direction
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Cumulative sentences
5. › Totality principle
6. › Whether sentencing judge's intention carried into effect
7. › Effect of cumulative order on parole eligibility
8. › Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), ss 93(1)(b), 94

Quick Take

Where a sentencing judge imposes a cumulative sentence intending both offenders to serve equivalent time in custody, the court must account for the effect of parole eligibility provisions under ss 93(1)(b) and 94 of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), as a cumulative order may extend the total time in custody by the full period of the new sentence rather than the intended proportion. A trial judge is not required to give a specific direction regarding prejudicial references to an accused as a drug dealer where the inference was obvious from the evidence, the evidence was relevant to the background of the offence, and defence counsel expressly declined to have the issue highlighted.