H v The Queen

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on an application for special leave to appeal. The applicant, H, sought to challenge a decision of the Court of Appeal of Queensland concerning the issue of corroboration in a criminal trial. The Crown was the respondent. The dispute centred on the admissibility and significance of certain evidence presented at trial, particularly evidence given by the complainant's brother.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of corroborative evidence. Specifically, the applicant argued that the Court of Appeal, despite acknowledging the trial judge's direction that there was no corroborative evidence, had nevertheless admitted and considered evidence that should have been treated as corroborative. The applicant contended that the evidence of the complainant's brother, relating to sleeping arrangements and what he observed, was capable of corroborating the complainant's testimony, and that the Court of Appeal’s reasoning on this point was flawed.

The applicant submitted that the trial judge had incorrectly directed the jury that there was no corroborative evidence, despite admitting the brother's testimony. The Court of Appeal, while also stating there was no corroboration, had then analysed the brother's evidence, suggesting it was admissible as tending to show a sexual relationship or similar behaviour. The applicant argued that if the evidence was admissible on these grounds, it necessarily constituted corroboration, and the courts below had erred in failing to recognise this. The applicant contended that the brother's evidence, which described seeing the complainant on a bed without a top on, was inconsistent with the complainant's own evidence but was still admitted and then depreciated by the trial judge and the Court of Appeal.

The High Court granted special leave to appeal.