Ripper v WA

[2024] WASCA 30

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. › Unreasonable verdict
4. › Whether verdict unsupported by evidence
5. › DNA evidence
6. › Direct and indirect transfer of DNA
7. › Whether open to jury to exclude reasonable possibility of indirect transfer
8. › Criminal Code (WA), s 7(a), s 401(2)(b)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Criminal liability as principal offender
4. › Whether prosecution required to prove accused did all acts constituting offence
5. › Whether open to jury to find appellant entered premises and committed stealing
6. › Criminal Code (WA), s 7(a)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Directions to jury
4. › Separate consideration of counts
5. › Whether trial judge required to direct jury on use of evidence of one count in proof of another
6. › Whether perceptible risk of miscarriage of justice
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Retrial
4. › Whether retrial should be ordered
5. › Whether evidence sufficiently cogent to support conviction
6. › Whether ordering retrial would give prosecution opportunity to supplement defective case
7. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 30(3)(a), s 30(5)

Quick Take

Prosecutors in WA must carefully consider the basis of criminal liability before trial, as the decision in O'Dea means that where the case is left to the jury solely on s 7(a), the prosecution must prove the accused did all acts constituting the offence; DNA evidence alone, where indirect transfer cannot be excluded, may be insufficient to establish this.