Grant v WA

[2017] WASCA 162

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Propensity evidence
4. › Admissibility under s 31A Evidence Act 1906 (WA)
5. › Whether text messages from 2-3 years prior to offending had significant probative value
6. › Whether lapse of time precluded admission
7. › Whether balancing exercise regarding risk of unfair trial required express reference
8. › Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 31A
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Propensity evidence
4. › Directions to jury
5. › Whether trial judge required to direct jury on permissible use of propensity evidence
6. › Whether direction required that propensity evidence not be used for manufacturing charge
7. › Whether failure to give direction occasioned miscarriage of justice
1. Criminal Law
2. › Parties to offences
3. › Aiding
4. › Directions to jury
5. › Whether trial judge required to use word 'intention' when directing on aiding
6. › Whether direction using 'purpose' was sufficient
7. › Criminal Code (WA), s 7
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Totality principle
4. › First limb
5. › Whether aggregate sentence disproportionate to overall criminality
6. › Manufacturing methylamphetamine
7. › Possession with intent to sell or supply
8. › Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), ss 6(1)(a), 6(1)(b)

Quick Take

Lapse of time of two to three years does not preclude admission of propensity evidence under s 31A of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA), particularly where the evidence shows prior possession of the same types of drugs as those charged. The admissibility of propensity evidence is assessed at the time of the ruling, not retrospectively in light of admissions made during trial. A trial judge's direction on aiding under s 7 of the Criminal Code (WA) need not use the word 'intention' if the direction, considered as a whole, makes clear that the accused's acts must be willed and done for the purpose of aiding the offence.