De Silva v The QueenCitation:[2019] HCA 48Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Nettle, Gordon JJDate:13 Dec 2019Case Number:B24/2019Read more

De Silva v The QueenCitation:[2019] HCA 48Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Nettle, Gordon JJDate:13 Dec 2019Case Number:B24/2019Read more

The court held that a Liberato direction is not automatically required where the accused does not give sworn evidence but makes exculpatory statements in a recorded interview admitted into evidence; the necessity depends on the circumstances and the summing-up as a whole.

Parties
Appellant: Appellant; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Jury Directions, Standard of Proof, Exculpatory Statements, Liberato Direction
Criminal Law Jury Directions Standard of Proof Exculpatory Statements Liberato Direction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Liberato direction is required where the accused does not give sworn evidence.
  2. 2 Whether a Liberato direction is required where a record of interview containing exculpatory statements is admitted into evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that a Liberato direction is not automatically required where the accused does not give sworn evidence but makes exculpatory statements in a recorded interview admitted into evidence; the necessity depends on the circumstances and the summing-up as a whole.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed