BQ v The King

BQ
v
THE KING
[2023] HCASL 214
S92/2023

An extension of time is required for this application for special leave to appeal from the whole of the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Davies J, McNaughton J and R A Hulme AJ), on the grounds that the Court of Criminal Appeal erred: in holding that the evidence of Associate Professor Shackel was admissible as expert opinion evidence (ground one); in holding that the trial judge's directions to the jury in respect of Associate Professor Shackel's evidence were adequate (ground two); in its consideration of the unreasonable verdict ground (ground three); and in substituting a verdict in relation to Count 8 pursuant to s 7(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) (ground four). Grounds one and two of the proposed appeal raise questions of law of public importance sufficient to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal. Special leave should be refused in relation to grounds three and four.
The application for an extension of time is granted. Special leave to appeal is granted in relation to grounds one and two.
Gageler CJ
Gordon J
Edelman J
Steward J
Gleeson J
Jagot J
Beech-Jones J
7 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia was presented with an application for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant, BQ, sought to appeal against the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal which upheld the conviction and sentence of the applicant on several criminal charges. The Court of Criminal Appeal had considered the appeal and found no error in the trial judge’s handling of the case, including the admission of expert evidence and the directions given to the jury.

The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether the evidence of Associate Professor Shackel, an expert witness, was admissible as expert opinion evidence and if the trial judge’s directions to the jury regarding this evidence were adequate. Additionally, the Court of Criminal Appeal’s consideration of the unreasonable verdict ground and its decision to substitute a verdict under s 7(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) were brought into question. The applicant argued that the Court of Criminal Appeal had erred in these respects.

The High Court found that the questions concerning the admissibility of the expert evidence and the adequacy of the trial judge’s directions to the jury on this evidence were of significant public importance and warranted the grant of special leave to appeal. The Court held that the other grounds of appeal did not present sufficient public importance to warrant special leave. Consequently, the Court granted the application for an extension of time and allowed the appeal on the specified grounds.

The final orders of the High Court were that special leave to appeal be granted in relation to the admissibility of the expert evidence and the adequacy of the jury directions. The other grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the Court denied special leave in relation to these issues. The applicant was thus permitted to proceed with the appeal on the specified grounds.

Continue reading BQ v The King

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established