Sethi v WA

[2020] WASCA 173

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Appeal against conviction
4. › Miscarriage of justice
5. › Incompetence of trial counsel
6. › Failure to adduce evidence of good character
7. › Whether failure to advise accused about good character evidence occasioned miscarriage of justice
8. › Whether reasonable forensic decision
9. › Criminal Code (WA), s 378(7)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Appeal against conviction
4. › Miscarriage of justice
5. › Incompetence of trial counsel
6. › Distinction between forensic decisions within counsel's remit and decisions reserved for the accused personally
7. › Whether Craig v The Queen approach applies to character evidence decisions
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Good character evidence
4. › Relevance to credibility and propensity
5. › Whether failure to adduce good character evidence constitutes material irregularity
6. › Whether significant possibility irregularity affected outcome

Quick Take

The decision to adduce evidence of an accused's good character is a forensic judgment within counsel's remit, not a personal decision reserved for the accused. The Craig v The Queen approach (concerning the impact of inadequate advice on an accused's personal choice to give evidence) does not extend to failures to advise about good character evidence. Whether failure to adduce character evidence constitutes a material irregularity depends on the circumstances, including whether the accused's honesty was already a premise of the prosecution case, the strength of the proposed character evidence, and the forensic risks of adducing it.