Dunn v The Queen

Dunn was convicted of conspiracy to dishonestly cause a loss to a Commonwealth entity. Dunn appealed against the conviction, arguing that the trial judge failed to adequately direct the jury on the evidence of the alleged co-conspirator. The alleged co-conspirator had pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge and was sentenced prior to Dunn's trial. He was a Crown witness at Dunn's trial. The primary issue for the court to determine was whether the trial judge failed to adequately direct the jury on the alleged co-conspirator's evidence and whether there was a substantial miscarriage of justice.

The court considered the relevance of Section 50 of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) in relation to the trial judge's direction to the jury. The court noted that Section 50 requires the judge to comment upon the evidence of a witness if there is a particular danger in acting upon that evidence which a jury might not otherwise appreciate. However, the court held that the trial judge was not required to give a corroboration warning to the jury unless it was satisfied that such a warning was justified in the circumstances. The court further held that the trial judge was required to make it clear to the jury that it was for them alone to evaluate the evidence of the witness in the light of common experience.

The court found that the trial judge adequately directed the jury on the evidence of the alleged co-conspirator. The court held that the trial judge made it clear to the jury that it was for them alone to evaluate the evidence of the alleged co-conspirator in the light of common experience. The court further held that there was no substantial miscarriage of justice and dismissed the appeal.

The court dismissed Dunn's appeal and affirmed the conviction.