Panda v The State of Western Australia

Panda appeals against both his conviction and sentence following his conviction for multiple sex offences against numerous patients. The appeal against conviction argues that the trial judge erred in not directing the jury that an acquittal on one count would undermine the likelihood of the appellant having a tendency to offend against that or another complainant. The appeal against sentence claims the trial judge erred in characterising the appellant's offending as involving a 'serious breach of trust', resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence. The appeal against conviction raises questions about the proper use of propensity evidence in jury trials and the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the inter-relationship of the counts in the indictment.

The appeal against conviction focuses on whether the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury about the inter-relationship of the counts. The appellant contends that the trial judge did not sufficiently explain that an acquittal on one count could not be used to bolster the likelihood of guilt on another count. The appeal against sentence argues that the trial judge's characterisation of the offending as a 'serious breach of trust' was inappropriate, as it led to an overestimation of the severity of the offending and a resultant manifestly excessive sentence. The appeal against sentence also contends that the trial judge failed to properly apply the totality principle in assessing the appropriate sentence.

In dismissing the appeal, the Court found that the trial judge did not err in the way he directed the jury on the inter-relationship of the counts. The Court held that the jury was properly directed that they could only convict the appellant on a count if they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, and that an acquittal on one count would not undermine the likelihood of the appellant's guilt on another count. The Court further held that the trial judge did not err in characterising the offending as a 'serious breach of trust'. The Court found that the trial judge had properly considered the totality of the offending and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.