DWM v The State of Western Australia [No 2]

The case before the court was an appeal by DWM against their conviction on a count of indecent dealing with a child under the age of 13 years. The appeal was brought on the grounds of alleged error of law or miscarriage of justice, specifically focusing on the trial judge's direction regarding the Longman principle, the impact of the delay between the alleged offending and the appellant's awareness of it, and the conduct of the defence counsel. The court was required to determine if these alleged errors led to a miscarriage of justice and warranted a retrial.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the trial judge's Longman direction was appropriate, whether the delay caused a forensic disadvantage that prejudiced the appellant's case, and if the defence counsel's conduct fell below the required standard. The appellant argued that the delay resulted in a forensic disadvantage, which was not adequately warned to the jury, and that the defence counsel failed to cross-examine the complainant on critical issues or present certain evidence that could have been beneficial.

The court found that the trial judge did not adequately warn the jury about the impact of the delay on the case, which was a significant error as it could have affected the jury's assessment of the evidence. The court also noted that the defence counsel's failure to cross-examine the complainant on certain points and to present specific evidence that might have been favourable to the appellant constituted a breach of the duty of care owed to the appellant. These issues, when considered together, led to a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the judgment of conviction was set aside with a retrial ordered on the first count.