Morey v The State of Western Australia

The case of Morey v The State of Western Australia involved an appeal against the appellant's criminal conviction and sentence. The appellant sought leave to amend the grounds of appeal by adding new grounds and to appeal against his conviction and sentence. The legal issues before the court were whether the appellant had reasonable prospects of success on the proposed new grounds of appeal, whether additional evidence could be considered on appeal, and whether certain procedural irregularities during the trial warranted an appeal.

The court found that the appellant had reasonable prospects of success on the proposed new grounds of appeal, particularly in relation to the relevance and probative value of a photograph of the appellant's "Dream Catcher" tattoo. The court also found that the additional evidence was admissible under section 95(9)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA). However, the court held that the meeting between the prosecuting and defence counsel with the judge in chambers during the trial in the absence of the accused was not a "proceeding" for the purposes of section 88 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), and therefore did not constitute a procedural irregularity.

The court granted the appellant's application for leave to amend the grounds of appeal in part and his application for leave to appeal in part. The appellant was permitted to add new grounds of appeal relating to the photograph of his "Dream Catcher" tattoo and the non-disclosure of evidence by a witness. However, the court held that the meeting between the prosecuting and defence counsel with the judge in chambers during the trial did not constitute a procedural irregularity.

The final orders of the court were that the appellant's application for leave to amend the grounds of appeal was granted in part and his application for leave to appeal was granted in part. The appellant was permitted to add new grounds of appeal relating to the photograph of his "Dream Catcher" tattoo and the non-disclosure of evidence by a witness. However, the court held that the meeting between the prosecuting and defence counsel with the judge in chambers during the trial did not constitute a procedural irregularity.