Crane v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Crane, against his conviction for murder. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain evidence during his trial.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of the applicant's prior convictions and prior bad character, which had been introduced by the Crown. This evidence was presented to suggest a propensity on the part of the applicant to commit violent acts, thereby implying he was more likely to have committed the murder with which he was charged.

The High Court held that the admission of this evidence was an error. Gleeson CJ and Gummow J explained that evidence of prior convictions or bad character is generally inadmissible to prove that a person committed the offence charged, as it risks the jury convicting the accused on the basis of their past rather than the evidence relating to the present charge. Such evidence is only admissible in limited circumstances, such as where it has a direct bearing on a fact in issue in the current proceedings, or where it is relevant to a specific exception to the general rule against character evidence. In this instance, the evidence was found to be improperly admitted, as its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.