Pittard v WA

[2013] WASCA 126

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Lies by accused
4. › Direction to jury
5. › Zoneff direction
6. › Whether direction must state lies go 'only' to credit
7. › Whether adequate direction given where prosecution relied on lies for credit only
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Totality principle
4. › First limb
5. › Whether total effective sentence bore proper relationship to overall criminality
6. › Drug offences
7. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 6(1), s 7(1)(a)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Parity principle
4. › Co-offenders sentenced by different judges
5. › Whether lack of disparity gave rise to justifiable sense of grievance
6. › Relevance of guilty plea discount and relative criminality
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Bias
4. › Whether sentencing errors give rise to inference of bias
5. › Johnson v Johnson test
6. › Jia Legeng test

Quick Take

A Zoneff-type direction regarding lies told by an accused need not include the word 'only' (i.e., need not state that lies go 'only' to credit); it is sufficient that the jury is told that lies are not evidence of guilt. The sentencing range analysis in Bosworth does not constitute a sentencing matrix. An appeal against a drug trafficker declaration does not lie under the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) but under the District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 (WA).