Nn v WA

[2018] WASCA 92

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. › Reopening prosecution case
4. › Rebuttal evidence
5. › Whether trial judge erred in allowing State to reopen its case
6. › Where defence deliberately led evidence creating misleading impression of household circumstances
7. › Where evidence of parents' convictions for sexual offences against same children was highly prejudicial
8. › Rule in Browne v Dunn
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against sentence
3. › Sexual offences
4. › Indecent dealing with lineal relative under 16
5. › Sexual penetration of lineal relative under 16
6. › Intra-familial sexual abuse
7. › Multiple victims
8. › Offender a child at time of some offences
9. › Whether trial judge correctly applied Young Offenders Act 1994 (WA)
10. › Whether total effective sentence infringed first limb of totality principle
11. › Criminal Code (WA), s 329
12. › Young Offenders Act 1994 (WA), ss 46, 50B

Quick Take

Where defence counsel deliberately leads evidence creating a misleading impression of facts known to be false, and fails to put the relevant proposition to prosecution witnesses in cross-examination (breaching the rule in Browne v Dunn), the prosecution may be permitted to reopen its case to call rebuttal evidence even where that evidence is highly prejudicial and was previously agreed to be excluded. The accuracy of a trial judge's assessment of a hypothetical juvenile sentence does not determine whether the Young Offenders Act principles were correctly applied to the actual sentence imposed.