DTS v The Queen

The appellant, DTS, was convicted of a number of serious sexual offences against his partner's daughter, who was under the age of sixteen at the time of the offences. The trial judge directed the jury that they must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant was telling the truth before convicting the appellant, pursuant to the Murray direction. The High Court of Australia allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions. The central issue before the Court was whether the Murray direction was required in light of the evidence in the case. The Court held that the direction was not required because the evidence against the appellant was of such a high quality that it was open to the jury to convict him without the direction. The Court also considered the appropriate terms of the Murray direction, holding that the trial judge should have informed the jury that the direction was given as a matter of law, rather than as a matter of discretion. Finally, the Court held that relationship evidence did not need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court held that the Murray direction was not required because the evidence against the appellant was of such a high quality that it was open to the jury to convict him without the direction. The Court noted that there was some corroboration of the complainant's evidence, and that some inconsistencies in the corroboration evidence did not mean that the direction was required. The Court also held that the lack of full corroboration or some inconsistency was not determinative of whether the Murray direction was required. The Court held that the trial judge should have informed the jury that the direction was given as a matter of law, rather than as a matter of discretion. This was important because it ensured that the jury understood the legal basis for the direction and did not feel that they had a discretion to disregard it. Finally, the Court held that relationship evidence did not need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. This was because relationship evidence was not a separate element of the offence, but rather evidence that could be used to prove the other elements of the offence.