SGH v WA

[2016] WASCA 161

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. › Miscarriage of justice
4. › Prosecutor's closing address
5. › Consciousness of guilt
6. › Whether jury could infer appellant had knowledge of offences because he was the offender
7. › Whether prosecutor's invitation to jury to draw that inference was supported by the evidence
8. › Whether absence of curative direction gave rise to miscarriage of justice
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Fresh evidence
4. › Whether fresh evidence gave rise to significant possibility of acquittal
5. › Credibility and cogency of fresh evidence
6. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), ss 39, 40
1. Criminal Law
2. › Trial
3. › Duties of prosecutor
4. › Closing address
5. › Whether prosecutor introduced false line of reasoning or invited jury to speculate
6. › Obligation to put matters to accused in cross-examination before relying on them in closing
1. Criminal Law
2. › Trial
3. › Duties of trial judge
4. › Curative directions
5. › Whether trial judge bound to give direction to avoid perceptible risk of miscarriage of justice

Quick Take

A prosecutor may not invite a jury to infer that an accused's knowledge of allegations arose from consciousness of guilt unless there is a sufficient evidentiary foundation for that inference, and the proposition has been put to the accused in cross-examination. Where the only evidence of the accused's knowledge comes from the accused's own evidence, rejection of that evidence does not provide a foundation for inferring consciousness of guilt. A trial judge must give a curative direction where a prosecutor advances such an unsupported submission, and failure to do so gives rise to a miscarriage of justice.