Bromley v The King

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on an application for special leave to appeal. The applicant, who had been convicted of murder in 1985 and remained in prison, sought to challenge the decision of the Court of Appeal of South Australia. The respondent was the Crown.

The legal issues before the High Court concerned alleged errors by the Court of Appeal in its assessment of evidence. Specifically, the applicant argued that the Court of Appeal had erred by treating evidence that bolstered the credibility of a key witness, Mr Carter, as if it were corroboration of incriminatory evidence. Further, it was argued that the Court of Appeal failed to adequately engage with new psychiatric evidence suggesting Mr Carter's testimony was inherently unreliable, and that it had overlooked inconsistencies in Mr Carter's out-of-court statements. The applicant also contended that the Court of Appeal had not properly assessed the totality of the evidence in light of a changed evidentiary landscape, including new pathological evidence and the potential unreliability of other witnesses.

The applicant's submissions focused on the principle that corroboration must relate to incriminatory evidence, and that the Court of Appeal had misapplied this principle by relying on evidence that merely supported Mr Carter's general credibility. The applicant highlighted expert psychiatric evidence, particularly from Dr Brereton, which indicated that while individuals with conditions like Mr Carter's might occasionally provide reliable evidence, it was impossible to determine when this occurred without independent corroboration. This, it was argued, meant Mr Carter's evidence could not be relied upon to incriminate the applicant unless independently supported. Furthermore, the applicant submitted that new pathological evidence challenged the original findings regarding the cause of death and the timing of injuries, thereby altering the evidentiary landscape and potentially supporting alternative defences that were not fully explored at trial.

The High Court granted the applicant an extension of time to file the application. The transcript records the submissions of counsel for the applicant, Mr Keim, SC, outlining these grounds of appeal. The respondent's counsel, Mr Hinton, KC, indicated that the only question of law of general public importance that could arise concerned the interpretation of s 353A(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) regarding the respondent's ability to call evidence on a subsequent appeal, though he argued this case was a poor vehicle for that determination.