Harwood v WA

[2016] WASCA 8

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Stealing
3. › Stealing as a servant
4. › Defence of honest claim of right
5. › Whether trial judge required to direct jury that honest claim of right may exist despite use of dishonest means to access property
6. › Whether direction necessary to avoid perceptible risk of miscarriage of justice
7. › Criminal Code 1913 (WA), ss 22, 371, 378(7)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Miscarriage of justice
4. › Failure to give direction not sought by defence counsel at trial
5. › Whether absence of direction occasioned miscarriage of justice
6. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 30(3)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Trial
3. › Summing up
4. › Directions to jury
5. › Scope of duty to direct on defences
6. › Whether direction required where no evidential basis for it on the facts

Quick Take

A trial judge is not required to direct the jury that a person can have an honest claim of right despite using dishonest means to access property where no evidence at trial suggests the use of dishonest means apart from the alleged fraudulent taking or conversion itself. The direction from cases such as Roberts, Hunter and Kastratovic is confined to cases where there is cogent evidence of dishonest means of access distinct from the charged conduct, such as forging documents or substituting bank account details.