Visser v WA [No 2]

[2025] WASCA 74

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. › Child sex offences
4. › Prosecution case dependent on complainant's evidence
5. › Whether miscarriage of justice occasioned by prosecutor's closing submissions focusing on unlikelihood of fabrication
6. › Distinction between impermissible suggestion that accused bears onus to prove motive to lie and permissible submission pointing to objective features of complainant's evidence
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Directions to jury
4. › Assessment of credibility and reliability
5. › Whether trial judge's directions confined jury to binary choice between innocent mistake and dishonesty
6. › Whether directions considered as a whole gave rise to miscarriage of justice
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Misstatement of evidence by trial judge
4. › Whether trial judge misstated evidence in summing up
5. › Whether misstatement material to verdict
6. › Criminal Code (WA), s 321(4)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Unreasonable verdict
4. › Whether verdict unreasonable or unsupported by evidence
5. › Independent assessment of sufficiency and quality of evidence
6. › Whether jury acting rationally should have entertained reasonable doubt

Quick Take

A prosecutor may properly submit to the jury that objective features of a complainant's evidence — such as the absence of more serious allegations, inability to provide full particulars, and expressed uncertainty about details — are indicative of a truthful account, provided the submissions do not suggest the accused bears an onus to prove a motive to lie.