Cross v The Queen

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The applicant, Mr Cross, sought to challenge a decision of a lower court. The respondent was The Queen.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the proper direction to a jury regarding the significance of alleged lies told by an accused person. Specifically, the court considered whether an alleged oral admission, not formally recorded or signed by the accused, could be treated as a "lie" for the purpose of jury directions, and how such an admission related to the corroboration of other evidence.

The applicant argued that an alleged oral statement, made between recorded interviews and not signed or read back to the accused, was improperly treated as a lie by the trial judge in his directions to the jury. The applicant contended that this statement, which allegedly strengthened the inculpatory nature of the recorded interviews, was not a "lie" in the relevant sense and that the direction given was akin to a "Robinson-type direction," which the applicant submitted was inappropriate. The applicant referred to the trial judge's direction at page 33 of the transcript, which noted that the accused had not given evidence on oath.

The High Court granted special leave to appeal.