1Submissions about relevancy made by a self-represented accused in a criminal trial, with no apparent knowledge of s 32 of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA), do not constitute formal admissions under that section; such admissions must be specific, clear, formal and deliberate, and treating casual or contextual statements as formal admissions may itself constitute a miscarriage of justice.
2Where the prosecution relies on an evidentiary certificate under s 110 of the Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008 (WA) that extends beyond what is permissibly contained in such a certificate, and the only other basis for proving essential elements is alleged informal admissions that do not meet the s 32 threshold, the conviction cannot stand.
3A magistrate's erroneous finding that an accused gave evidence and made admissions during testimony, when the accused in fact elected not to give evidence, constitutes an error of fact supporting appellate intervention.
