Am v WA

(2008) 188 A Crim R 457; [2008] WASCA 196

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Admissions
4. › Admissibility of non-specific admissions
5. › Whether alleged statements sufficiently specific as admission against interest
6. › Whether probative value outweighed prejudicial effect
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Warnings
4. › Longman warning
5. › Delay between offence and complaint
6. › Whether trial judge adequately directed herself as to forensic prejudice caused by delay
7. › Whether actual prejudice or merely possible prejudice identified
8. › Whether limited admissions evidence could negate need for Longman scrutiny
9. › Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 119(3)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Verdict unreasonable or unsupported by evidence
4. › Whether verdict reasonably open having regard to the evidence
5. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 30(3)(a)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Proviso
4. › Whether proviso applicable where inadequate Longman warning given
5. › Whether error constituted serious breach of presuppositions of trial process
6. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 30(4)

Quick Take

A trial judge giving a Longman direction must identify the actual forensic prejudice caused by delay, not merely acknowledge possible prejudice. Limited admissions evidence that falls short of a confession to the offence charged cannot be used to conclude that delay caused only 'minimal' prejudice or to negate the need for careful Longman scrutiny. An inadequate Longman direction constitutes a serious breach of the presuppositions of the trial process, precluding application of the proviso under s 30(4) of the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA).