Garrett v The Queen

This matter concerns an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia, brought by the applicant, Garrett, against the respondent, The Queen. The dispute centres on the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of South Australia to uphold the joinder of certain charges. The applicant contends that the Court of Criminal Appeal erred in its application of established legal principles regarding joinder and the admissibility of evidence.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the Court of Criminal Appeal had correctly applied the tests for joinder of charges, particularly as laid down in cases such as *Kray*, *Ludlow*, *Sutton*, and *De Jesus*. The applicant argued that the Court of Criminal Appeal had improperly extended these principles by permitting joinder based on a perceived relevance to the issue of "relationship" between the parties, even in the absence of legal or factual similarity between the offences. Specifically, the applicant challenged the reasoning that evidence of rapes was admissible on charges of false imprisonment simply because it demonstrated the relationship between the parties and provided context, without the necessary element of similarity required by precedent.

The applicant submitted that the Court of Criminal Appeal's reasoning, which focused on the evidence of one offence being admissible on the trial of another to establish the relationship between the parties, represented an unwarranted extension of the rules on joinder. While acknowledging that the test of admissibility of evidence of one offence on the trial of another is recognised in cases like *Sutton* and *De Jesus*, the applicant argued that this test is applied in the context of similarities between offences. The Court of Criminal Appeal, however, applied this test not in the context of similarity but in the context of establishing the relationship and setting for the offences, which the applicant contended was an incorrect application of the established principles. The applicant also noted that the Court of Criminal Appeal found the offences neither legally nor factually similar, yet permitted joinder based on a perceived similarity in personal domination, an element the applicant argued is implicit in the offences themselves.