RMD v WA

(2017) 266 A Crim R 67; [2017] WASCA 70

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 a child
4. › Propensity evidence
5. › Whether evidence of one count had significant probative value in respect of another count
6. › Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 31A
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Sexual offences against a child
4. › Longman warning
5. › Adequacy of warning where accused informed of complaint without material delay but substantial delay before criminal proceedings
6. › Whether warning firm and emphatic
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Directions to jury
4. › Alleged admissions by accused
5. › Whether directions adequately instructed jury on approach to assessing equivocal admissions
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Directions to jury
4. › Liberato direction
5. › Whether direction erroneous
6. › Whether jury left with impression accused bore burden of proof

Quick Take

The Court held that on appeal, the admissibility of propensity evidence under s 31A is reviewed on a Warren v Coombes (correctness) basis, not a House v The King (discretionary error) basis, and that prompt notification of a complaint may reduce but does not eliminate the need for a Longman warning where there is a long delay before prosecution.