Nad v WA

[2013] WASCA 2

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. › Directions to jury
4. › Consciousness of guilt
5. › Post-offence conduct
6. › Attempt to hide evidence
7. › Whether trial judge obliged to direct that conduct and its character as admission against interest must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
8. › Criminal Code (WA), s 326, s 338B, s 552
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Directions to jury
4. › Edwards lies
5. › Whether State relied on accused's denial in cross-examination as deliberate untruth told out of consciousness of guilt
6. › Whether Edwards direction required
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Extension of time
4. › Whether proposed ground of appeal had reasonable prospect of success

Quick Take

Where the prosecution relies on an accused's post-offence conduct (such as attempting to hide evidence) as consciousness of guilt, rather than on a denial in cross-examination as a deliberate untruth, an Edwards lie direction is not required. The distinction between post-offence conduct evidence and Edwards lies determines the applicable directions. Where consciousness of guilt evidence from post-offence conduct is not the only evidence against the accused and is not an indispensable link in the chain of proof, it need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt.