Adam John Street v The Queen

Adam John Street appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The central dispute concerned whether the appellant had been denied a fair hearing according to law, as contemplated by s 37O(2)(a)(iii) of the *Supreme Court Act 1933* (ACT), due to alleged unfairness in the prosecutor's closing address to the jury.

The Court was required to determine whether the prosecutor's closing address contained material that lacked an evidentiary basis, contradicted the evidence, or introduced matters not put to the appellant. Furthermore, the Court had to consider whether the prosecutor made comments that belittled or ridiculed the appellant's evidence, and crucially, whether the appellant's counsel's failure to raise these concerns with the trial judge impacted the assessment of unfairness.

The Court reasoned that for an appeal based on a prosecutor's conduct to succeed, a significant degree of unfairness must be demonstrated, amounting to a miscarriage of justice. In this instance, while some aspects of the prosecutor's address might have been open to criticism, the Court found that they did not reach the threshold of unfairness required to vitiate the conviction. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel had not raised objections at trial, which was a relevant factor in assessing whether the conduct complained of had, in fact, led to a miscarriage of justice. Ultimately, the Court concluded that no miscarriage of justice had occurred.

The appeal was dismissed.