Coco v Shaw

This matter concerns an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia by the applicant, Mr John Robert Muhldorff Shaw, against the respondent, represented by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The dispute arose from a decision of the Full Court concerning the admissibility of evidence in committal proceedings.

The legal issues before the High Court involved whether the Full Court erred in its consideration of the applicant's case, particularly in relation to the admissibility of evidence. The applicant argued that the Full Court's focus on the test in *Bunning v Cross* and the general desirability of intervening in committal proceedings overlooked a crucial distinction: the existence of an absolute statutory prohibition on the giving of certain evidence. The applicant contended that this prohibition, designed to confer privacy benefits on the citizen, should be enforceable by the courts.

The applicant's submission was that where there is an absolute statutory prohibition on the giving of evidence, the courts, specifically the Supreme Court, have a duty to enforce it. While acknowledging that the forms of relief sought, such as a declaration or injunction, might theoretically involve discretion, the applicant argued that if a contravention of the statutory prohibition was apparent, there would be no practical discretion to refuse relief. The applicant sought to establish that the case was not merely about the common law rules of evidence but about upholding a statutory mandate.