Epd v WA

[2011] WASCA 264

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. › Directions to jury
4. › Longman direction
5. › Forensic disadvantage caused by delay
6. › Whether direction gave unmistakable and firm warning
7. › Whether specific forensic disadvantages identified
8. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 30(3)(a)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Directions to jury
4. › Propensity and uncharged acts
5. › Whether direction on tendency evidence adequate
6. › Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 31A
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Directions to jury
4. › Summation of defence case
5. › Whether trial judge fairly put defence case to jury
6. › Adequacy of summary in light of defence counsel's closing address
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Directions to jury
4. › Crofts direction
5. › Delay in complaint
6. › Whether jury permitted to consider delay as casting doubt on credibility
7. › Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 36BD

Quick Take

A Longman direction must give an unmistakable and firm direction of law (not merely a comment) on forensic disadvantage, must refer to the loss of opportunity to marshal a defence as well as to test evidence, and must identify specific forensic disadvantages caused by the delay rather than speaking only in general terms. The use of the word 'dangerous' is not required. For indecent dealing with children under 13 involving breach of trust by a teacher, individual sentences of 1-1.5 years' imprisonment for touching offences are within the range of a sound sentencing discretion.