Baldwin v WA

[2020] WASCA 110

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. › Unreasonable verdict
4. › Whether verdict unreasonable and not supported by the evidence
5. › Circumstantial evidence
6. › Whether jury bound to accept alternative inference consistent with innocence
7. › Criminal Code (WA), s 220, s 221A(2)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Possession of child exploitation material
3. › Meaning of possession
4. › Knowledge, custody or control, and intention to possess
5. › Whether momentary possession sufficient
6. › Digital evidence
7. › Thumbnail images as evidence of saving files
8. › Criminal Code (WA), s 220
1. Evidence
2. › Circumstantial evidence
3. › Inferences from digital forensic evidence
4. › Whether alternative hypothesis reasonably open
5. › Role of accused's own evidence in limiting available inferences

Quick Take

Forensic evidence that thumbnail images can only be created by saving files to a computer (not by merely clicking links) is capable of sustaining an inference of possession of child exploitation material, even where the original files have been deleted. An accused's adamant denial of saving files may foreclose alternative inferences that might otherwise have been available, such as unknowing saving followed by immediate deletion upon discovery.