The admission into evidence of a file containing extensive prejudicial hearsay material, combined with unauthorised cross-examination on character (change of name to avoid creditors), a prejudicial judicial comment about the name change, and an unsolicited judicial direction that the file revealed lies evidencing consciousness of guilt, constitutes a combination of procedural irregularities so serious as to preclude application of the proviso under s 30(4) of the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA). The failure of experienced counsel to object to the tender of prejudicial material is a relevant factor but is not fatal to the appeal.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.