Tanner v The State of Western Australia

In the case of Tanner v The State of Western Australia, the appellant challenged both his conviction and sentence, asserting that the trial judge had erred in various respects. The appellant was convicted of supplying a prohibited drug to another person and was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with examining the fairness of both the conviction and the sentence. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge adequately addressed the defence case, whether the summing up contained unsupported statements, and if the trial judge was obligated to direct the jury regarding prejudicial evidence. Additionally, the court assessed whether comments made by the trial judge in the presence of the jury panel created a reasonable apprehension of bias. Regarding the sentence, the court examined whether the sentencing process was fair, if the sentence was based on undisclosed material, and whether the trial judge's satisfaction of various aggravating factors beyond reasonable doubt was permissible under the parity principle.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not adequately address the defence case, particularly in relation to the identity of the supplier. The court held that the summing up contained statements that were unsupported by the evidence and that the trial judge should have directed the jury about evidence that was more prejudicial than probative. The court also determined that the trial judge's comments in the presence of the jury panel did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias. Concerning the sentence, the court found that the sentencing process was fair and that the trial judge was not bound to direct the jury about undisclosed material. However, the court held that the trial judge should not have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to various aggravating factors, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.