Biggers v The Queen

Biggers was charged with and convicted of several offences, including sexual offences. The defendant appealed against his conviction, contending that his trial counsel was incompetent for failing to dispute the geographical jurisdictional nexus with New South Wales in relation to one count on the indictment. The defendant argued that the lack of a dispute on the jurisdictional nexus regarding this count may have enhanced the credibility of the complainant on another count. The appeal hinged on whether there was a rational explanation for the trial counsel’s approach and whether the alleged incompetence affected the fairness of the trial.

The court considered whether the trial counsel's failure to dispute the jurisdictional nexus was a result of a sound tactical decision or whether it constituted incompetence. The court examined whether the decision not to challenge the nexus could be rationally explained and whether it may have inadvertently bolstered the complainant's credibility on another count. The defendant needed to demonstrate that the alleged incompetence was so significant that it rendered the trial unfair and the verdict unreasonable.

The court concluded that the trial counsel's decision not to dispute the jurisdictional nexus could be rationally explained as a tactical choice. The court found that the rationale behind this approach was to avoid drawing unnecessary attention to the jurisdictional issue, which might have otherwise undermined the defendant’s position on other counts. Consequently, the court determined that the alleged incompetence did not affect the fairness of the trial or lead to an unreasonable verdict. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.