BQ v The King

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.