Kia v The Queen

[2011] WASCA 104

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Defences
3. › Duress
4. › Section 10.2 Criminal Code (Cth)
5. › Test of reasonableness of belief
6. › Whether direction must refer to age, gender and maturity of accused
7. › Whether direction adequate having regard to live issues at trial
1. Criminal Law
2. › Trial
3. › Directions to jury
4. › Liberato direction
5. › Whether direction required where case does not turn on conflict between prosecution and defence witnesses
6. › Whether failure to give full Liberato direction occasioned miscarriage of justice
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Admissibility
4. › Map evidence
5. › Whether map wrongly admitted
6. › Whether failure to remove exhibit caused miscarriage of justice
1. Criminal Law
2. › Trial
3. › Non-disclosure by prosecution
4. › Discretion to make adverse comment
5. › Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 97(4)
6. › Whether failure to exercise discretion occasioned miscarriage of justice

Quick Take

A duress direction under s 10.2 of the Criminal Code (Cth) that relies on the words of the section without elaboration is adequate where no reasonable jury would exclude personal characteristics from consideration and where such characteristics are not relevant to the live issues at trial. The question whether Oblach v The Queen correctly holds that reasonableness under s 10.2(2) is assessed without regard to personal characteristics remains unresolved. A Liberato direction is not required where the case does not turn on a conflict between prosecution and defence witnesses.