EPD v The State of Western Australia

The appellant, EPD, appealed against both his conviction and sentence on multiple counts of indecently dealing with a child under the age of 13 years. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of Western Australia. EPD argued that there were errors in the trial judge's directions to the jury and the summation of the defence case, as well as the trial judge's criticism of the defence counsel, which amounted to a substantial miscarriage of justice. Additionally, he contended that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge's direction on the Longman principle and the Crofts direction were erroneous and whether these errors, along with the criticism of defence counsel, rendered the verdict on count 9 unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court also had to determine whether the totality of the errors amounted to a substantial miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, the court examined if the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal held that there were errors in the trial judge's directions and summation of the defence case, which impacted the fairness of the trial. The criticism of defence counsel, although not ideal, did not constitute a substantial miscarriage of justice on its own. However, when combined with the errors in the trial process, it contributed to an unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict on count 9. The court concluded that a new trial was necessary for counts 1 to 6 due to these errors. Regarding the sentences, the court found them to be varied but not manifestly excessive.

The court set aside the convictions and sentences in respect of counts 1 to 6, ordering a new trial on those counts. The sentences were varied, and the appeal was dismissed in respect of counts 7 to 13. Leave to appeal was refused on certain grounds but granted on ground 1, leading to the appeal being allowed in respect of that ground.