James Paul Seivers v R

[2010] ACTCA 9

ACT 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. › Circumstantial evidence
6. › Whether evidentiary circumstances bore no other reasonable explanation
7. › Whether reasonable doubt could be dispelled having regard to jury's advantage in seeing and hearing evidence
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Appeal against conviction
4. › Miscarriage of justice
5. › Crown Prosecutor's comments on credibility of accused
6. › Interest of accused in outcome of case
7. › Whether direction by trial judge sufficient to cure prejudice
8. › Whether fairness of trial substantially compromised
1. Evidence
2. › Witnesses
3. › Credibility
4. › Accused person's interest in outcome
5. › Undesirability of direction inviting jury to discount evidence of accused based on interest in acquittal
6. › Presumption of innocence

Quick Take

The Robinson v R prohibition on inviting a jury to discount evidence based on an accused's interest in acquittal extends to comments about a co-accused's interest. A trial judge's direction that the accused's evidence is to be treated like any other witness does not cure the vice if it fails to address the specific impermissible comment and may give it tacit support. Where a circumstantial Crown case depends on rejecting a co-accused's evidence and the only basis for rejection is the co-accused's interest in acquittal, the verdict will be unsafe and unsatisfactory.