Mehta v WA

(2023) 305 A Crim R 455; [2023] WASCA 24

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. › Jury
4. › Apprehended bias
5. › Juror's prior experience of sexual assault
6. › Whether reasonable apprehension of bias arises from juror having been victim of crime of same type as charged offence
7. › Whether trial judge erred in not discharging juror
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Jury
4. › Apprehended bias
5. › Juror with knowledge of foreign language spoken by accused
6. › Discharge of juror
7. › Whether trial judge required to question remaining jurors
8. › Whether miscarriage of justice
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Jury
4. › Prejudicial material
5. › Whether jury provided with untranslated document
6. › Application to adduce additional evidence on appeal
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Aggravated sexual penetration without consent
4. › Manifest excess
5. › Co-offenders
6. › Parity principle
7. › Whether degree of disparity between co-offenders' sentences gave rise to justifiable sense of grievance
8. › Criminal Code (WA), s 7, s 326

Quick Take

A juror's prior experience of sexual assault does not, without more, give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias in a sexual assault trial. The assumption underlying the jury system is that persons who have been victims of crime, including sexual assault, are able to give effect to their obligation to act impartially. A trial judge is not required to question or discharge such a juror absent conduct or statements indicating actual partiality. Where a juror with knowledge of a foreign language spoken by the accused is discharged, the trial judge is not required to question the remaining jurors if the discharged juror has confirmed she did not translate material for them and an appropriate direction is given.