Wiaceck v The State of Western Australia

The appellant, Wiaceck, appealed against his convictions for fraud offences, arguing that the trial judge erred by not discharging a juror who made a comment during cross-examination of a witness. The appellant also claimed that the trial judge should have warned the jury if they relied on identification evidence and that the redirection from the prosecution was inadequate, resulting in a substantial miscarriage of justice. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The court needed to determine whether the trial judge's failure to discharge the juror constituted a reasonable apprehension of bias. It was also necessary to assess whether the trial judge should have given a warning about relying on identification evidence and whether the redirection was sufficient. If the appeal was successful, the court would need to consider whether the errors amounted to a substantial miscarriage of justice.

The court found that the juror's comment did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias, and the trial judge's failure to discharge the juror was not an error. The court also determined that the trial judge should have given a warning about relying on identification evidence, but this did not amount to a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court found that the redirection was adequate and did not prejudice the appellant. The court concluded that the errors did not result in a substantial miscarriage of justice, and the appeal was dismissed.

The court granted leave on ground 2 of the appeal, but the appeal was dismissed.