BGH v WA

[2020] WASCA 124

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. › Miscarriage of justice
4. › Conduct of defence counsel at trial
5. › Whether alleged omissions in cross-examination and closing address constituted material irregularities
6. › Whether significant possibility irregularities affected outcome
7. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 30(3)(c)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Miscarriage of justice
4. › Trial judge's intervention in cross-examination
5. › Collateral evidence rule
6. › Whether complainant's answer was equivocal
7. › Whether trial judge erroneously prevented further cross-examination on prior false accusation relevant to credibility
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Proviso
4. › Whether no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred
5. › State's onus
6. › Whether possibility of acquittal could be excluded beyond reasonable doubt
7. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 30(4)
1. Evidence
2. › Cross-examination
3. › Collateral evidence rule
4. › Ambiguous answer by witness
5. › Whether cross-examiner bound by equivocal answer
6. › Whether premature to invoke collateral evidence rule

Quick Take

Where a witness gives an ambiguous answer to a question on a collateral matter in cross-examination, it is premature for the trial judge to invoke the collateral evidence rule to prevent further questioning; the cross-examiner is entitled to clarify the ambiguity. A false allegation of sexual experience is not a 'sexual experience' for the purpose of s 36BC of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA), so leave is not required to cross-examine a complainant about a prior false accusation of sexual touching.