› Whether verdict unreasonable or not supported by evidence
› Circumstantial evidence
› Post-offence conduct as evidence of guilt
› Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 30(3)(a)
Criminal Law
› Appeal
› Appeal against conviction
› Miscarriage of justice
› Jury directions
› Cut-throat defence
› Joint trial of co-accused
› Whether trial judge required to direct jury that both accused could be acquitted
› Whether framing issue as 'whodunit' created risk of impermissible reasoning
Criminal Law
› Appeal
› Appeal against conviction
› Miscarriage of justice
› New evidence on appeal
› Non-disclosure of documents by legal representatives
› Whether failure to adduce evidence at trial caused miscarriage of justice
Criminal Law
› Trial
› Jury directions
› Separate consideration direction
› Joint trial of co-accused each blaming the other
› Whether direction adequate to prevent reasoning to guilt by elimination
Quick Take
1Where two co-accused run cut-throat defences and the evidence leaves open the possibility that neither accused's guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt, the adequacy of jury directions must be assessed as a whole; standard separate-consideration and burden-of-proof directions, combined with a detailed question trail requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt of each element, may be sufficient to avoid the risk of guilt by elimination — though the dissent held that an express direction that both accused could be acquitted was required in the circumstances.
2Post-offence conduct such as concealment and disposal of a body, applying R v Baden-Clay, can support an inference of criminal responsibility for murder rather than merely accessory liability, and can bolster the credibility of a co-accused's evidence on a critical factual issue such as the timing of death.
3A decision by trial counsel not to adduce available evidence does not give rise to a miscarriage of justice where the decision is capable of reasonable forensic explanation on an objective basis, even where the evidence was not disclosed to the accused or senior counsel by instructing solicitors.
Case Details
Citation[2020] WASCA 91
CourtWASCA
JurisdictionWestern Australia
Unlock so much more with Barrister AI
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
