Liu v WA

[2012] WASCA 218

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Voluntary intoxication
4. › Whether evidence of intoxication sufficient to require jury direction
5. › Whether direction concerning intoxication correct
6. › Criminal Code (WA), s 28(3)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Collateral evidence rule
4. › Whether inconsistent statements made by complainant were collateral
5. › Exceptions to collateral evidence rule
6. › Prior inconsistent statements
7. › Reputation for veracity
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Hearsay
4. › Res gestae
5. › Whether statement made in circumstances of spontaneity
6. › Whether statement relevant to charge
7. › Requirement of close contemporaneity
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Sentence
4. › Whether sentence manifestly excessive
5. › Assault occasioning bodily harm
6. › Unlawful wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm
7. › Criminal Code (WA), ss 294(1), 317

Quick Take

A direction on intoxication under s 28(3) of the Criminal Code (WA) is not required where there is evidence that the accused consumed alcohol but no evidence as to the quantity consumed, the period of consumption, or that the accused was affected by the alcohol. The collateral evidence rule precludes rebuttal evidence where the purpose is to prove that a witness made no statement at all (as opposed to an inconsistent statement) on a matter going only to credit. A statement made in a triple zero call cannot form part of the res gestae in relation to a charge of assault where the call was made well after the assault and related to a subsequent and separate incident.