Singh v WA

[2012] WASCA 262

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. › Jury directions
4. › Lies direction
5. › [name withheld] direction
6. › Whether direction necessary where alleged lie goes only to credibility
7. › Whether serious risk jury would use credibility lie as evidence of guilt
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Jury directions
4. › Right to silence
5. › Whether direction necessary where prosecutor disclosed accused's exercise of right to silence in police interview
6. › Whether adverse inference risk arose
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Miscarriage of justice
4. › Failure to seek direction at trial
5. › Whether failure to direct constituted miscarriage of justice where no direction sought

Quick Take

Where a prosecutor discloses an accused's exercise of the right to silence in a police interview for the purpose of explaining an edited recording, and immediately directs the jury that no adverse inference can be drawn, no separate judicial direction on the right to silence is required. An alleged lie that goes only to credibility and is not capable of indicating consciousness of guilt does not require a [name withheld] direction, even where the prosecutor's closing address makes much of the lie, provided the broader context makes clear the lie is relied upon for credibility purposes only.