Trudgian v The State of Western Australia

In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, the appellant, Trudgian, brought an appeal against his conviction for possession of a firearm and ammunition, contending that the trial judge had misdirected the jury on several key points. The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in refusing to grant a certificate of indemnity under the Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 11, and in not providing appropriate direction to the jury about the effect of such a certificate. Additionally, he submitted that the trial judge misdirected the jury as to the elements required to prove possession and failed to correct comments made during closing submissions that were unsupported by evidence. The appellant further claimed that the trial judge misdirected the jury regarding the evidence of his good character.

The court was required to determine whether the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion in refusing to grant a certificate of indemnity under the Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 11, and if the jury had been properly directed on the effect of such a certificate. It also needed to examine whether the trial judge had correctly instructed the jury on the elements of possession and if he should have intervened to correct comments made in closing submissions that were unsupported by evidence. Finally, the court had to consider whether the trial judge had misdirected the jury in relation to the evidence of the appellant's good character.

The court found that the trial judge had not erred in refusing to grant a certificate of indemnity under the Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 11, as the appellant had not established a prima facie case for its issuance. The court also determined that the trial judge had not misdirected the jury on the effect of the certificate and that there was no error in the instructions given to the jury regarding the elements of possession. Furthermore, the court held that the trial judge had not misdirected the jury in relation to the evidence of the appellant's good character, and that any comments made in closing submissions that were unsupported by evidence did not require correction. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, and the conviction upheld.

The court made no orders as to costs.