Baker v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the appellant, who had been jointly tried with a co-accused, LM, for murder. The appellant was convicted of murder, while LM was acquitted. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of out-of-court confessional statements made by LM, which the appellant sought to adduce in his own defence.

The legal issue before the High Court was whether LM's out-of-court confessional statements, which tended to exculpate the appellant, were admissible in evidence against the Crown as an exception to the hearsay rule. This required the Court to consider the existing common law position on hearsay and admissions, particularly in light of the decision in *Bannon v The Queen*, and whether the circumstances warranted a departure from established principles to allow such statements to be used in favour of a co-accused.

The High Court reasoned that the common law in Australia regarding exceptions to the hearsay rule should not be altered in the manner advocated by the appellant. The Court found that LM's statements were not admissible in the appellant's favour, distinguishing the present case from *R v Myers* and finding that the trial judge's direction on the matter was correct. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.