Chidiac v The Queen; Asfour v The Queen

These proceedings concern applications for special leave to appeal by Chidiac and Asfour. The applicants are seeking to challenge convictions, arguing that the verdicts returned against them were unsafe and unsatisfactory. The High Court of Australia is considering whether to grant special leave to appeal.

The central legal issue before the High Court is whether an appellate court, when assessing whether a verdict is unsafe or unsatisfactory, can consider the credibility of witnesses, particularly in cases where the evidence against the accused relies heavily on that witness's testimony. The applicants contend that such an assessment of credibility is permissible, even in the absence of a direct contradiction from the accused, and that the distinction between assessing a volume of circumstantial evidence and assessing the credibility of a witness is merely one of degree.

The applicants' argument, as presented by Mr. Bennett, is that appellate courts are entitled to review witness credibility when determining if a verdict is unsafe or unsatisfactory. He referred to a series of cases and legal texts supporting this proposition, including a recent decision of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. Mr. Bennett drew an analogy to the principles applied in civil cases under *Warren v Coombes*, suggesting that in extreme circumstances, an appellate court can form a different conclusion on credibility. He also cited *Voulis v Kozary* as an instance where the High Court itself reversed a lower court's decision based on a pure credibility issue. The applicants submit that their case involves additional factors and contradictions that make the Crown witnesses' evidence intrinsically unlikely, thus rendering the verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory.