VJS v WA

[2017] WASCA 172

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. › Sexual offences against de facto child
4. › Right to legal representation
5. › Where appellant chose to represent himself at trial
6. › Whether trial was unfair
7. › [name withheld] v The Queen principles
8. › Criminal Code (WA), s 329
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Fair trial
4. › Unrepresented accused
5. › Obligations of trial judge
6. › Whether trial judge provided adequate assistance
7. › Whether trial judge should have stayed proceedings or discharged jury
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Extension of time
4. › Gross delay
5. › Whether exceptional circumstances established
6. › Whether proposed grounds of appeal have merit
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Additional evidence on appeal
4. › Distinction between fresh and new evidence
5. › Whether new evidence establishes innocence or raises doubt about conviction
6. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 39, s 40(1)(e)

Quick Take

The [name withheld] principles requiring a stay or adjournment of proceedings do not apply where an accused has chosen to represent himself, has failed to demonstrate indigence, and has not taken reasonable steps to obtain legal representation. A trial judge's extensive procedural assistance to a self-represented accused, including explaining procedures, reviewing cross-examination questions, providing adjournments, and directing the jury on the accused's status, is capable of ensuring a fair trial notwithstanding the accused's lack of legal skill.