Burke v Corruption and Crime Commission

(2012) 289 ALR 150; [2012] WASCA 49

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Particular offences
3. › Offences relating to the administration of justice
4. › Giving false evidence to anti-corruption commission
5. › Elements of the offence
6. › Whether evidence objectively false
7. › Whether accused knew evidence was false
8. › Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 (WA), s 168
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Appeal against conviction
4. › Whether magistrate erred in finding accused had 'asked' minister to make appointment
5. › Whether request to recommend appointment to Cabinet constituted 'asking' minister to appoint
6. › Whether failure to distinguish between ministerial appointment and Cabinet-approved appointment occasioned miscarriage of justice
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Meaning of question alleged to have been falsely answered
4. › Whether meaning determined objectively or by accused's subjective understanding
5. › Distinction between objective falsity of evidence and subjective knowledge of falsity
1. Evidence
2. › Rule in Browne v Dunn
3. › Application in criminal proceedings
4. › Whether magistrate entitled to find answer to unrelated question was knowingly false where prosecutor did not put falsity to accused in cross-examination
5. › Whether breach of rule vitiated conviction
6. › Whether substantial miscarriage of justice

Quick Take

The offence of giving false evidence under s 168 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 (WA) requires proof of both objective falsity and subjective knowledge of falsity. The meaning of a question alleged to have been falsely answered is determined objectively, not by the accused's subjective understanding; the accused's understanding is relevant only to the knowledge element. A request to a Minister to appoint a person to a statutory body is not negated by the fact that the appointment process requires Cabinet approval. The rule in Browne v Dunn does not preclude a magistrate from finding an answer to be false where the prosecutor failed to put the falsity to the witness in cross-examination, provided the witness's credibility was manifestly in issue.