TWR v WA

[2023] WASCA 170

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Bail
3. › Bail pending appeal
4. › Exceptional reasons
5. › Whether grounds of appeal have strong prospects of success
6. › Bail Act 1982 (WA), Sch 1 Pt C cl 4A
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Conviction appeal
4. › Directions to jury
5. › Longman direction
6. › Forensic disadvantage from delay
7. › Whether loss of forensic opportunity was real and actual
8. › Whether delay caused the disadvantage
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Conviction appeal
4. › Directions to jury
5. › Circumstantial evidence
6. › Whether direction required on use of evidence of genital redness
7. › Whether evidence used only for credibility assessment

Quick Take

Where an appellant's own defence case at trial involved giving detailed evidence of specific occasions and marshalling documentary evidence (WhatsApp messages) to support that defence, a claim of forensic disadvantage from delay in complaint is unlikely to be strongly arguable for bail purposes, as the defence case itself demonstrates the ability to marshal a defence. Evidence of physical symptoms (genital redness) used by the prosecution only for the limited purpose of credibility assessment, not as independent proof of guilt, is unlikely to require a specific jury direction on circumstantial evidence reasoning.