Chaouk v The Queen

[2022] VSCA 151

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Conviction
4. › Murder
5. › Whether miscarriage of justice occasioned by absence of jury direction
6. › Whether substantial and compelling reasons for direction not requested by defence counsel
7. › Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), s 3(1), s 190(1)
8. › Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic), ss 11(b)(ii), 12, 16(1)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Alibi
4. › Evidence in support of alibi adduced by prosecution
5. › Whether direction required that rejection of alibi not to be used against accused
6. › Whether risk of jury reversing onus of proof or treating rejection as implied admission of guilt
1. Criminal Law
2. › Trial
3. › Jury directions
4. › Alibi evidence
5. › Twin dangers of alibi evidence
6. › Reversal of onus of proof
7. › Inference of consciousness of guilt from false alibi
8. › Whether direction required where alibi evidence called by prosecution not defence

Quick Take

Where alibi evidence is adduced by the prosecution rather than the defence, the usual twin dangers associated with alibi evidence (reversal of onus and inference of consciousness of guilt) are significantly diminished, and a direction warning the jury not to use rejection of the alibi against the accused may not be required and may indeed be counterproductive. The threshold of 'substantial and compelling reasons' under s 16(1) of the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic) for giving an unrequested direction was not met in such circumstances.

Case Details

Citation[2022] VSCA 151

CourtVSCA

JurisdictionVictoria

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members.

Relies on10

2007R v Merrett, Piggott & FerrariVSCA 1
2002Dyers v RHCA 45
1999Regina v KneeboneNSWCCA 279
1984R v ApostilidesHCA 38
and 6 more after sign-in

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in