Saw Wah v The Queen

In Saw Wah v The Queen, the applicant sought to appeal his conviction for sexual offences against a child under the age of 16. The applicant, who had no prior convictions, was in a position to lead evidence of his good character. However, he had been convicted of several traffic offences after the alleged sexual offences. These traffic offences included careless driving, driving while under the influence of alcohol, and leaving the scene of a collision. The trial judge ruled that the applicant could lead evidence of his good character, but that the prosecution could rebut such evidence by introducing the traffic offences. The applicant argued that the traffic offences were completely irrelevant to his character and that the ruling was erroneous.

The legal issue before the court was whether the traffic offences were admissible in rebuttal of the applicant’s evidence of good character. The court considered section 110 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), which sets out the circumstances in which evidence of a person’s character may be adduced. The court noted that section 110(3) provides that evidence of a person’s character may be led by the defendant, but that the prosecution may adduce evidence in rebuttal. However, the court held that the traffic offences were not admissible in rebuttal because they were completely irrelevant to the applicant’s character in relation to the sexual offences.

The court held that the traffic offences were not admissible in rebuttal because they were completely irrelevant to the applicant’s character in relation to the sexual offences. The court noted that section 110(4) of the Evidence Act provides that evidence of a person’s character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that the person acted in accordance with that character on a particular occasion, unless the evidence is adduced by the defendant. The court held that the traffic offences did not go to the applicant’s character in relation to the sexual offences and were therefore completely irrelevant. The court also noted that the trial judge’s ruling had the effect of punishing the applicant for his traffic offences, which was not permissible under the law. The court held that the trial judge’s ruling was erroneous and that the appeal should be allowed.

The court allowed the appeal and set aside the applicant’s conviction. The court held that the trial judge’s ruling that the traffic offences were admissible in rebuttal of the applicant’s evidence of good character was erroneous. The court held that the traffic offences were completely irrelevant to the applicant’s character in relation to the sexual offences and could not be led in rebuttal. The court allowed the appeal and set aside the applicant’s conviction, ordering a re-trial.