Huggins v WA

[2018] WASCA 61

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Miscarriage of justice
4. › Incompetence of counsel
5. › Whether failures of trial counsel gave rise to miscarriage of justice
6. › Whether identified errors were errors at all
7. › Whether any errors deprived accused of a chance of acquittal that was fairly open
8. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 30(3)(c)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Miscarriage of justice
4. › Adverse publicity
5. › Whether social media campaign occasioned miscarriage of justice
6. › Whether failure to apply for adjournment was error
7. › Whether jury directions sufficient to cure prejudice
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Inconsistent verdicts
4. › Whether verdicts of guilty inconsistent with verdicts of not guilty on other counts relating to same complainants
5. › Whether jury acting on evidence or on extraneous considerations
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Summing-up
4. › Whether errors in trial judge's summing-up
5. › Adequacy of Longman warning
6. › Majority verdict direction
7. › Whether comments on defence and prosecution case fair and balanced

Quick Take

The case provides a comprehensive application of the principles governing propensity evidence under s 31A of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) in multi-complainant child sexual offence trials, confirming that 'striking similarity' or 'underlying unity' are not required for admissibility. It also confirms that mixed verdicts (guilty on some counts, not guilty on others relating to the same complainant) are not inconsistent but rather demonstrate careful jury deliberation. The case reaffirms that the test for miscarriage of justice based on incompetent counsel focuses on the effect on the trial, not the quality of counsel's performance.