The prejudicial effect of evidence admitted under Sch 3 cl 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) that justifies exclusion cannot arise solely from the fact that the content is to the defendant's disadvantage; where evidence goes to a central issue, that is a factor in favour of admission rather than exclusion. Strong jury directions about the limitations of untested evidence can adequately address the unfairness of admitting an absent witness's statement. Identification directions need not follow any particular order, but the preferred approach is to give the warning about dangers before or with the review of identification evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.