Ryan v WA

[2011] WASCA 7

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. › Unreasonable verdict
4. › Whether verdicts unreasonable or cannot be supported by evidence
5. › Credibility of key prosecution witness with extensive prior inconsistent statements
6. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 30(3)(a)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Miscarriage of justice
4. › Erroneous exclusion of cross-examination material
5. › Whether substantial miscarriage of justice
6. › Application of proviso
7. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 30(3)(c)
1. Evidence
2. › Competence and compellability
3. › Co-accused as witness for prosecution
4. › Construction of s 8(1) of Evidence Act 1906 (WA)
5. › Whether co-offender charged but not co-accused competent witness for prosecution at co-offender's trial
6. › Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 8(1)(a)
1. Evidence
2. › Cross-examination
3. › Prior inconsistent statements
4. › Evidence given at earlier trial in contravention of statutory provision or rule of practice
5. › Whether discretion to permit cross-examination
6. › Bunning v Cross discretion

Quick Take

The scope of s 8(1) of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) in relation to co-offenders giving evidence for the prosecution remains unresolved, but the Court's preliminary view is that the section is confined to an accused who is a defendant in the relevant proceedings and does not govern the competence of co-offenders called by the prosecution. Where evidence is obtained in breach of s 8(1) or the common law rule of practice against calling accomplices, the Bunning v Cross discretionary principles apply rather than automatic exclusion. Once the discretion under s 89(4) of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) is enlivened, there is no bias in favour of parole.