Dick v The Queen

[2006] HCATrans 172

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Perth No P49 of 2005

B e t w e e n -
JAMES FLAVELL DICK
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal
Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

HAYNE J
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 11 APRIL 2006, AT 1.57 PM

HAYNE J: On 30 July 2001 the applicant was convicted in the District Court of Western Australia on four of six counts of sexual offences preferred against him. He appealed against those convictions to the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, but on 22 November 2002 his appeal was dismissed. He now seeks special leave to appeal. His application is made well out of time.

Because the applicant is unrepresented his application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

The applicant states as the grounds of his intended appeal:

“(a) the lack of evidence;

(b) for the collusion and conspiracy;

(c) the sexuality of defendant.”

His written case does not amplify any of these grounds in a way revealing error in the courts below. It is not arguable that there has in this case been any miscarriage of justice.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. I publish that disposition.

AT 1.58 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Dick v The Queen* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia by the applicant, Dick, against his conviction for murder. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain evidence during his trial and the subsequent directions given to the jury.

The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of the applicant's prior convictions and whether the jury directions regarding the use of that evidence were adequate. Specifically, the court considered whether the evidence of prior convictions was relevant to the issue of the applicant's propensity to commit the offence charged, and if so, whether its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.

In their joint judgment, Hayne and Crennan JJ held that the admission of the evidence of prior convictions was an error. Their Honours reasoned that the evidence was admitted for the improper purpose of suggesting that the applicant had a propensity to commit the offence charged, rather than for a legitimate purpose such as establishing identity or a common purpose. The court found that the jury directions, while attempting to limit the use of the evidence, were insufficient to overcome the prejudice arising from its admission. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established