Chai v The Queen

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on an application for special leave to appeal. The applicant, Chai, sought to challenge a decision of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. The respondent was the Queen. The core of the dispute concerned the admissibility of evidence provided by an accomplice witness.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether a trial judge possesses the power to exclude evidence from an accomplice who has not been finally dealt with, or has been only partly dealt with, in relation to the alleged conspiracy. Specifically, the applicant raised questions as to whether such a power, if it exists, is based on a rule of law, a rule of practice, or a rule of discretion. The applicant also contended that the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal had erred in rejecting the existence of a power based on a rule of law, had not clearly addressed the rule of practice, and had incorrectly rejected a discretionary power to exclude the accomplice's evidence.

The applicant argued that the Court of Criminal Appeal had recognised the public importance of the issues involved. The applicant's counsel indicated that the application would focus on specific questions concerning the power to exclude accomplice evidence, particularly in circumstances where the accomplice had entered into an agreement for a prison term in the United States, but had been granted immunity in Australia. The Court of Criminal Appeal had apparently rejected the power based on a rule of law, as articulated in *Pipe*, and had favoured a more limited discretionary approach to exclusion, as developed in cases such as *Merrit* and *Roso*.