Chidiac v The Queen; Asfour v The Queen

The High Court of Australia heard applications for special leave to appeal in the matters of *Chidiac v The Queen* and *Asfour v The Queen*. The applicants, represented by Mr. D.M.J. Bennett, QC, and Mr. K.P. Coorey, sought to appeal convictions. The Crown in both matters was represented by Mr. N.R. Cowdery, QC.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether a conviction could be considered unsafe and unsatisfactory, notwithstanding a favourable summing up by the trial judge. Specifically, the applicants argued that where the entirety of the Crown's evidence relied on witnesses who were demonstrably untruthful and self-contradictory, a verdict of guilty would be unsafe and unsatisfactory, even if the judge directed the jury to consider the witnesses' unreliability. The applicants contended that a favourable direction from the judge did not cure the fundamental defect of relying on such evidence.

The applicants' submissions highlighted that the Crown's case rested almost entirely on the testimony of two individuals described as self-confessed liars and perjurers, who were also accomplices. The trial judge had explicitly warned the jury about the credibility of these witnesses, stating he had not encountered such liars in his judicial experience. Despite this strong caution and the absence of corroborating evidence against Mr. Chidiac, the case was left to the jury. The Court of Criminal Appeal had dismissed the appeals, reasoning that the favourable summing up meant the verdict could not be unsafe and unsatisfactory. The applicants argued this reasoning was flawed, asserting that the nature of the evidence itself, rather than the judge's directions, determined whether a verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The High Court was referred to *Morris v The Queen* as the leading authority on the test for an unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict.