MWJ v The Queen

The appellant, MWJ, was convicted by a judge alone of three sexual offences against a child. The appeal concerned alleged inconsistencies between the evidence of the complainant and her mother regarding complaints made by the complainant. The High Court of Australia was required to determine whether the trial judge's handling of these supposed inconsistencies constituted an error.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the trial judge erred in his consideration of the alleged inconsistencies between the complainant's evidence and her mother's evidence, and whether the rule in *Browne v Dunn* was correctly applied to the accused in a criminal trial. Specifically, the court considered whether the failure to put these supposed inconsistencies to the complainant during cross-examination, and the consequences for the trial judge's decision-making process, amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

The High Court found that while the trial judge may not have referred to every aspect of the alleged inconsistencies, he had sufficiently considered the substance of the defence case on this issue. The court held that the omissions in the trial judge's reasons were not of such significance as to create a real risk of his ultimate conclusion being flawed, nor would they have led to an erroneous direction to a jury. The court also clarified that the rule in *Browne v Dunn* was not intended to require an accused to anticipate and cross-examine a witness on potential inconsistencies in the evidence of another prosecution witness, nor for a judge to depart from the rules of evidence to avoid perceived unfairness to a witness.

The appeal was dismissed.