Trudgian v WA

(2006) 33 WAR 163; [2006] WASCA 271

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Self-incriminating evidence
4. › Certificate of indemnity
5. › Whether trial judge required to direct jury on limited effect of s 11 certificate
6. › Whether certificate should be granted in presence of jury
7. › Appropriate direction to jury on effect of certificate
8. › Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 11
1. Criminal Law
2. › Trial
3. › Directions to jury
4. › Elements of possession
5. › Drugs not in physical possession of accused
6. › Whether knowledge alone sufficient to establish possession
7. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), ss 3(1), 6(1)(a)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Trial
3. › Closing address
4. › Prosecutor's submissions unsupported by evidence
5. › Whether trial judge should have corrected inappropriate assertions
6. › Whether miscarriage of justice resulted
1. Criminal Law
2. › Trial
3. › Directions to jury
4. › Good character evidence
5. › Whether direction sufficient where accused had pleaded guilty to related offences
6. › Dual relevance of good character to propensity and credibility

Quick Take

Where a prosecutor incorrectly tells the jury that a witness who has received a s 11 certificate under the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) is immune from prosecution, the trial judge must correct this misapprehension by directing the jury that the witness can still be prosecuted for perjury and for the offences themselves using evidence other than the protected testimony. Failure to do so constitutes a miscarriage of justice. A s 11 certificate need not always be granted in the presence of the jury; the requirement depends on the circumstances of the case.