Ricciardo v WA

[2010] WASCA 116

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Possession of prohibited drugs with intent to sell or supply
4. › Adequacy of trial judge's directions as to possession
5. › Whether direction confining case to sole possession rather than joint possession occasioned miscarriage of justice
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Jury irregularity
4. › Discovery by jury of item in tendered exhibit not referred to in evidence
5. › Whether miscarriage of justice occasioned
6. › Whether jury should have been discharged
1. Appeal
2. › Application for review of single judge's refusal of leave to appeal
3. › Nature of review
4. › Appeal by way of rehearing
5. › Whether single judge erred in refusing leave

Quick Take

A direction confining the prosecution case to sole possession rather than joint possession is more favourable to the accused and cannot ground a complaint of misdirection by the defence. The discovery by a jury of an item within a tendered exhibit that was not specifically referred to in evidence does not necessarily occasion a miscarriage of justice, particularly where the tender encompassed the exhibit and its contents, the item was not linked by evidence to the offending, and the accused was acquitted on the count most closely connected to the exhibit.