Baker (a pseudonym) v The King

The appeal in Baker v The King involved an appellant who was convicted on eight charges of sexual offending against a child. The appellant's counsel did not call any evidence of his good character. The appellant sought to appeal on the grounds of a substantial miscarriage of justice, arguing that the failure to call evidence of good character was not rationally explained. The Court of Appeal considered whether the failure to call evidence of good character constituted a substantial miscarriage of justice.

The central legal issue was whether the appellant's failure to call evidence of good character was rationally explained and, if not, whether this constituted a substantial miscarriage of justice warranting a retrial. The appellant argued that the failure to call evidence of good character was not rationally explained and that this constituted a substantial miscarriage of justice. The respondent contended that the failure to call such evidence was rationally explained because the appellant did not wish to call evidence of good character.

The Court of Appeal held that the failure to call evidence of good character was not rationally explained, as the appellant had not indicated any reason why he did not wish to call such evidence. The Court found that the absence of evidence of good character was a significant disadvantage to the appellant's defence, particularly in a case involving oath against oath. The Court concluded that the failure to call evidence of good character constituted a substantial miscarriage of justice and allowed the appeal, ordering a retrial.

The Court ordered a retrial of the appellant on the eight charges of sexual offending against a child.