White v The Queen

[2023] ACTCA 4

ÿþ

Judgment Summary

Supreme Court

Australian Capital Territory

Court of Appeal

Thursday, 2 February 2023

White v The Queen [2023] ACTCA 4

McCallum CJ, Mossop and Collier J

The Court of Appeal has unanimously dismissed an appeal against conviction for a single count of perjury following a trial by jury.  There was no appeal against sentence.

The basis for the appeal was that the jury s verdict was unreasonable, and could not be supported, having regard to the evidence. The conviction was based on false evidence the appellant gave in criminal proceedings in the Magistrates Court.  The appellant accepted that his evidence in those proceedings was false but explained that he answered the questions according to what he believed was relevant (which he said was part of his training as a police officer).  He further argued that he was not criminally responsible for perjury in light of his mistaken understanding of the import of the question. Finally, the appellant argued that the prosecution did not put to him in cross-examination that he was reckless or not mistaken, as required by the rule in Browne v Dunne, and that it followed that the verdict, being contrary to his unchallenged evidence, was unreasonable for that reason alone.

The Court rejected those arguments.  Chief Justice McCallum held based on her examination of the evidence at trial that it was well open to the jury to find the appellant s statement was simply false.  The evidence relating to his state of mind was damming.  Her Honour further held that the prosecution s cross-examination at trial proceeded on a clear understanding as to what the issues in the trial were and did not breach the rule in Browne v Dunn.  

Mossop and Collier JJ held that the appeal was without merit.  Their Honours held that it was clearly open to the jury to convict for perjury; the appellant s background as a police officer heightened his awareness of the need to give truthful and accurate evidence before the Court; a witness cannot decide what is relevant; and the possibility the appellant was mistaken was rejected.  Their Honours further held that the appellant s reliance on the rule in Browne v Dunn as it has been applied in criminal cases was misguided.  

This summary has been prepared for general information only.  It is not intended to be a substitute for the judgment of the Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court s judgment.

General enquiry contact details
Telephone: [phone]
Email: [email protected]