Judgment not available in electronic form

[2017] WASCA 144

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Drug offences
3. › Possession with intent to sell or supply
4. › Parties to offence
5. › Whether State's case properly confined to principal offender under s 7(a)
6. › Whether aiding under s 7(b) or (c) should have been left to jury
7. › Criminal Code (WA), s 7
8. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 6(1)(a)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Trial
3. › No case to answer
4. › Circumstantial evidence
5. › Test to be applied
6. › Whether evidence taken at its highest and inferences drawn most favourably to prosecution
7. › Whether circumstantial evidence evaluated in its entirety
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › State appeal against judgment of acquittal
4. › Proviso
5. › Whether no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred
6. › Whether lack of clarity in prosecution case contributed to erroneous acquittal
7. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 24(2)(e)(i), s 33(2), s 33(2a)

Quick Take

The proviso in s 33(2a) of the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) will not be applied to dismiss a State appeal against an acquittal merely because of a lack of clarity in the prosecution case at trial, where that lack of clarity did not materially contribute to the erroneous ruling. Unfairness arguments are more properly directed to the discretion to order a new trial under s 33(2)(c). Where a charge under s 6(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) is supported by circumstantial evidence of facilitating a drug transaction, the State may rely on both principal offender (s 7(a)) and aiding (s 7(b)/(c)) pathways, and acts done before the drugs came into the accused's vehicle are relevant to the aiding case.