Chase v The Queen

This matter concerns an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia by the applicant, Chase, against the respondent, The Queen. The dispute centres on alleged misdirections by the trial judge in the summing up to the jury, which the applicant contends rendered the trial unfair.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the language used by the trial judge in summing up the evidence was such that it effectively directed the jury to disregard the accused's statement as contradictory material to the Crown's case, and whether the Court of Criminal Appeal erred in its interpretation of the trial judge's summing up. Specifically, the applicant argued that the Court of Criminal Appeal’s view of the summing up was not a reasonably possible construction, particularly in light of fundamental errors and misstatements concerning the accused's evidence.

The applicant's submission was that the Court of Criminal Appeal wrongly relied on the perceived lack of objection from counsel and the overall "feel" of the trial to dismiss the errors. The applicant argued that the correct approach was to assess what the language reasonably conveyed to an attentive juror, irrespective of counsel's actions or the court's overall impression. The applicant contended that the summing up contained significant misstatements about the accused's evidence and assertions that there was no evidence to contradict critical aspects of the Crown case, creating a substantial risk that the jury was misled.