Cornish v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2012] HCATrans 202

Cornish (the applicant) sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant had been convicted in the District Court of New South Wales of an offence under the *Proceeds of Crime Act 1987* (Cth) and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against conviction. The dispute before the High Court concerned the applicant's entitlement to have his appeal heard on its merits, specifically in relation to the admissibility of certain evidence.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the applicant had been denied procedural fairness in the original trial. This question arose because the applicant contended that the trial judge had erred in admitting certain evidence against him, which he argued should have been excluded. The applicant's argument was that if this evidence had been excluded, there was a real possibility that he would not have been convicted.

Hayne and Crennan JJ considered the applicant's submissions regarding the alleged error in admitting the evidence. Their Honours noted that the applicant had not sought to have the evidence excluded at the trial itself. Instead, the applicant had sought to raise this issue for the first time on appeal. The Court held that, in the absence of any explanation for why the objection was not raised at trial, it was not open to the applicant to argue on appeal that the evidence should have been excluded. This principle reflects the importance of allowing trial judges to make rulings on evidence during the course of proceedings, thereby providing an opportunity for correction at the time.

Special leave to appeal was refused.