A prosecutor's cross-examination suggesting that an accused has tailored evidence over time, having read the prosecution brief and sat through the trial, does not infringe the right to silence where the suggestion is of fabrication developed over time rather than that silence itself indicates guilt. Where a jury rejects the accused's account of events, there is no scope for the statutory defence under s 59B(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) that the death was not attributable to the dangerous driving. An arithmetic error by the prosecutor in sentencing submissions, even if material, does not require a different sentence where the court, re-exercising the discretion afresh, arrives at the same result.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 17 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 17 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.