Snook v The State of Western Australia [No 2]

The appellant, Snook, appealed against his conviction for a number of child sexual offences. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The appeal challenged both the conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The appeal against the conviction was based on the argument that the counts on the indictment were bad for latent duplicity or ambiguity, as they did not clearly identify the acts constituting the offences. The appeal also challenged the adequacy of the evidence in identifying the specific acts that constituted the offences, as well as arguing that the trial had resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The court examined whether the counts on the indictment were sufficiently clear and specific to avoid being bad for latent duplicity or ambiguity. It also considered whether the evidence presented at the trial was sufficient to identify the specific acts that constituted the offences, and whether the trial had resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The court further considered whether the trial judge's direction to the appellant not to discuss the evidence before the cross-examination had commenced was erroneous and, if so, whether that error was material.

The court found that the counts on the indictment were not bad for latent duplicity or ambiguity, as they provided sufficient detail to enable the appellant to understand the charges against him. The court also found that the evidence presented at the trial was adequate to identify the specific acts that constituted the offences. The court further found that the direction given by the trial judge to the appellant not to discuss the evidence before the cross-examination had commenced was not erroneous and, even if it was, the error was not material. The appeal against conviction was therefore dismissed. The appeal against sentence was also dismissed.