Wark v WA

(2020) 56 WAR 365; [2020] WASCA 19

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. › Judge-alone trial
4. › Error in assessment of credibility of accused's out-of-court statements
5. › Whether trial judge erred by declining to accept alibi statements unless supported by independent evidence
6. › Whether error occasioned miscarriage of justice
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Proviso
4. › Application of proviso where error infected findings on alibi, opportunity and identification evidence
5. › Whether appellate court could be satisfied guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt
6. › Natural limitations on appellate assessment where credibility of witnesses significant
7. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 30(4)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Unreasonable verdict
4. › Circumstantial evidence case
5. › Murder
6. › Victim's body never found
7. › Whether verdict open on the evidence
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Judge-alone trial
4. › Standard of appellate review
5. › Errors of fact
6. › Whether appellate court in same position as trial judge to assess error

Quick Take

Convictions for serious offences admitted as propensity evidence cannot be used to diminish the intrinsic credibility of an accused's out-of-court statements to police so as to decline to accept those statements unless supported by independent evidence. The fact that statements to police are not on oath or affirmation, while relevant to weight, does not justify a blanket requirement for independent corroboration. Where a trial judge makes an adverse credibility finding based on the source and form of statements rather than their content, and that finding infects conclusions on central issues (alibi, opportunity), the proviso cannot cure the error if the appellate court has not seen and heard the witnesses.