Ibrahim v Herring

[2011] WASCA 266

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Appeal against conviction
4. › Road traffic offences
5. › Leave to appeal
6. › Whether grounds had reasonable prospect of succeeding
7. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 9, s 18
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Credibility of witnesses
4. › Inconsistencies in prosecution evidence
5. › Whether inconsistencies on matters of detail required rejection of evidence
6. › Distinction between rejection of evidence and finding of deliberate falsehood
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Bias
3. › Actual bias
4. › Whether judicial errors or misunderstandings provide foundation for assertion of actual bias

Quick Take

The case confirms that inconsistencies in prosecution evidence on matters of detail do not require rejection of that evidence or prevent a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A finding that a witness deliberately lied is in effect a finding of perjury requiring confirmatory evidence, and a magistrate's refusal to make such a finding is not erroneous merely because some aspect of the witness's evidence is rejected. Judicial errors or misunderstandings do not provide a foundation for assertions of actual bias.