Hayward v The State of Western Australia

The appellant, Hayward, was convicted after a trial in the Supreme Court of Western Australia of two counts of indecent dealings with a child under 13 years, while being acquitted of two further counts. The State of Western Australia prosecuted the case. Hayward appealed against his conviction, raising several grounds of appeal, including the admission of a video recording of an interview with the complainant and the manner in which the prosecutor conducted the trial.

The appeal focused on whether the admission of the video recording of the interview with the complainant, conducted under sections 106HA and 106HB of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA), caused a miscarriage of justice. Specifically, Hayward argued that the video did not comply with the statutory requirements, as it did not show the complainant's face while she was giving evidence, which he contended was necessary for the jury to adequately assess her credibility and reliability. Furthermore, Hayward argued that the prosecutor's conduct during the trial was inappropriate and prejudicial, potentially influencing the jury's verdict. The appeal also questioned the consistency of the guilty verdict on count 2 with the not guilty verdict on count 4, as well as whether an aggregate of errors at trial had led to a miscarriage of justice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions. The Court found that the primary judge had erred in admitting the video recording of the interview under section 106HB of the Evidence Act, as it did not comply with the statutory requirements of section 106HA. The Court held that the video recording did not show the complainant's face while she was giving evidence, which was essential for the jury to adequately assess her credibility and reliability. Additionally, the Court found that the prosecutor's conduct during the trial had been prejudicial and improper, potentially influencing the jury's verdict. The Court concluded that these errors, along with the inconsistency in the verdicts, led to a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the convictions were quashed.

The Court did not provide specific orders beyond allowing the appeal and quashing the convictions, leaving the matter open for potential retrial or further legal action as deemed appropriate by the parties.