CFM v The State of Western Australia

The case involves the appellant, CFM, who was convicted on five counts of sex offences. The respondent, the State of Western Australia, brought the case against the appellant, who was represented by counsel. The appellant appealed the decision, claiming that there was a miscarriage of justice in the trial. The appellant argued that the State was permitted to put its case on two counts on a basis materially different from the basis on which its case had previously been run. The appellant also argued that new evidence adduced on appeal raised such a doubt that the court should be satisfied that the appellant should not have been convicted on one or more of the counts. Additionally, the appellant claimed that the counsel was incompetent, and some of the convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory.

The court had to determine whether the State was permitted to put its case on two counts on a basis materially different from the basis on which its case had previously been run. The court also had to determine whether new evidence adduced on appeal raised such a doubt that the court should be satisfied that the appellant should not have been convicted on one or more of the counts. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the counsel was incompetent, and whether some of the convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory.

The court held that the appellant's appeal was not successful. The court found that there was no miscarriage of justice in the trial. The court held that the State was permitted to put its case on two counts on a basis materially different from the basis on which its case had previously been run, as the difference was not so substantial as to prejudice the appellant. The court also held that the new evidence adduced on appeal did not raise such a doubt that the court should be satisfied that the appellant should not have been convicted on one or more of the counts. The court further held that the counsel was not incompetent, and that the convictions were not unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court dismissed the appeal.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the convictions of the appellant on all five counts of sex offences. The court found that there was no miscarriage of justice in the trial, and that the appellant's appeal was not successful. The court held that the State was permitted to put its case on two counts on a basis materially different from the basis on which its case had previously been run, and that the new evidence adduced on appeal did not raise such a doubt that the court should be satisfied that the appellant should not have been convicted on one or more of the counts. The court also held that the counsel was not incompetent, and that the convictions were not unsafe and unsatisfactory.