Director of Public Prosecutions v Walker

[2011] ACTCA 1

ACT Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sexual offences
3. › Sexual intercourse without consent
4. › Mens rea
5. › Knowledge or recklessness
6. › Whether one offence or two depending on accused's state of mind
7. › Whether Crown required to elect between knowledge and recklessness
8. › Duplicity
9. › Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 54, 60
1. Evidence
2. › Hearsay
3. › First-hand hearsay exception
4. › Complaint evidence in sexual offence cases
5. › Whether complaint evidence admissible as evidence of truth of facts asserted
6. › Whether trial judge required to direct jury on hearsay use unless s 136 limitation imposed
7. › Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss 59, 60, 66(2), 136
1. Criminal Law
2. › Attorney-General's reference
3. › Reference appeal
4. › Jurisdiction
5. › Question of law arising at or in relation to the proceeding
6. › Whether question framed with sufficient precision
7. › Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 37S

Quick Take

Sections 54(1) and 60(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) each create a single offence; the Crown is not required to particularise between knowledge and recklessness on the indictment, and counts alleging both in the alternative are not duplicitous. Where complaint evidence is admitted under s 66(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) without a s 136 limitation, the trial judge must direct the jury that the evidence may be used both to support credibility and as evidence of the truth of the facts asserted.