IAB v The State of Western Australia

In the case of IAB v The State of Western Australia, the appellant, IAB, appealed against his conviction for a number of sexual offences, contending that the trial judge did not properly instruct the jury regarding the potential forensic disadvantage that arose from the delay in reporting the offences. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal of Western Australia. IAB argued that the trial judge's Longman direction was insufficient in alerting the jury to the risks of drawing adverse inferences from the delay in reporting.

The court was required to determine whether the trial judge's instructions to the jury were adequate in addressing the forensic disadvantage resulting from the delay in reporting. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the prosecutor misrepresented the evidence during the closing address to the jury. These issues were pivotal in determining whether the appellant's conviction was safe and whether the trial was fair.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not adequately instruct the jury regarding the forensic disadvantage that arose from the delay in reporting. The court found that the Longman direction was insufficient in this respect, as it did not sufficiently emphasise the risks of drawing adverse inferences from the delay. Furthermore, the court determined that the prosecutor misrepresented the evidence in closing, which contributed to the unfairness of the trial. As a result, the court quashed the appellant's convictions and ordered a retrial.

The court did not make any specific orders regarding the retrial, but it was noted that the trial judge should be more thorough in delivering the Longman direction and that the prosecutor should ensure that the evidence is accurately presented during closing addresses.