Bibovic v WA

[2016] WASCA 22

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. › Unreasonable verdict
4. › Whether verdict unreasonable or unsupported by evidence
5. › Identification evidence
6. › Cross-admissible propensity evidence neutralising identification deficiencies
7. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 30(3)(a)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Identification evidence
4. › Digiboard identification procedures
5. › Deficiencies in identification procedures
6. › Effect of cross-admissible propensity evidence on identification weaknesses
1. Evidence
2. › Propensity evidence
3. › Cross-admissibility
4. › Similar fact evidence
5. › Whether cross-admissible propensity evidence could cure identification deficiencies in individual counts
6. › Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 31A

Quick Take

Cross-admissible propensity evidence from multiple unrelated complainants describing a strikingly similar modus operandi can wholly neutralise significant identification deficiencies in individual counts, where it is accepted that one person committed all offences. Discrepancies in eyewitness descriptions that fall within the scope of expected and acceptable variations do not render a verdict unreasonable.