Frigger v The State of Western Australia [No 2]

In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, Frigger, the appellant, sought to appeal against her conviction for making a false statement on oath by swearing two affidavits that contained statements that were irreconcilable in certain respects. The trial judge found her guilty of the offence and imposed a fine. Frigger argued that the trial judge failed to adequately address her evidence in summing up the defence case and that the judge's direction as to the elements of the offence was erroneous. Specifically, Frigger argued that the judge had characterised the knowledge element of the offence as knowledge of the irreconcilability, rather than knowledge that the statements were false.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge failed to adequately address the defence case in summing up and whether the judge's direction as to the elements of the offence was erroneous. The court noted that the prosecution had characterised the charge as the irreconcilability of the statements, such that it did not have to prove which statement was false. The court found that the trial judge did not adequately address the defence case in summing up, as the judge made little reference to the appellant's evidence. However, the court found that the judge's direction as to the elements of the offence was not erroneous, as the judge had correctly directed the jury as to the knowledge element of the offence.

The court found that the trial judge's failure to adequately address the defence case in summing up did not render the conviction unsafe or unsatisfactory, as the evidence against the appellant was overwhelming. The court found that the trial judge's direction as to the elements of the offence was not erroneous, as the judge had correctly directed the jury as to the knowledge element of the offence. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were affirmed.