MJS v WA

[2011] WASCA 112

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. › Application to discharge jury
4. › Inadvertent disclosure of prejudicial evidence
5. › Evidence of breach of restraining order
6. › Whether trial judge erred in refusing to discharge jury
7. › Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 116(2)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Character evidence
4. › Rebuttal of good character
5. › Evidence of breach of violence restraining order
6. › Whether admissible to rebut good character
7. › Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 8(1)(e)(ii), s 8(1)(f)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Directions to jury
4. › Uncharged acts
5. › Good character evidence
6. › Violence restraining orders
7. › Whether directions adequate
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against sentence
3. › Sentencing discretion
4. › Credit for time spent in custody on remand
5. › Whether sentencing judge erred in failing to give full credit for all time on remand
6. › Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 87
7. › House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

Quick Take

A breach of an interim or final violence restraining order constitutes conduct prima facie inconsistent with good character and is admissible to rebut an accused's assertion of good character. Where an accused has been acquitted of charges for which they were remanded in custody, the time spent on remand should ordinarily be taken into account in sentencing for the principal offences, as the accused is in no different position than if remanded solely for those offences.