Harriman v The Queen

The applicant, Harriman, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against a decision of a lower court. The dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence, specifically letters, during the applicant's trial. The Crown was represented by Mr. R.J. Davies, QC, and Mr. J.A. Scholz, while the applicant was represented by Mr. G.P. Miller, QC, and Mr. M.T. Ritter.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether an accused person, by attacking a Crown witness and attempting to shift responsibility for the alleged crime onto that witness, thereby puts their own disposition regarding the subject matter of the indictment into issue. This question arose in the context of evidence of prior heroin dealing or use contained within letters, which the applicant argued should have been edited or excluded. The applicant contended that the legitimate conduct of a defence should not expose an accused to the risk of evidence of their disposition being adduced.

The applicant's submission was that the admissibility of the letters, in so far as they contained material relating to prior heroin dealing or use, was objectionable. While acknowledging the letters' dual purpose, including evidence of imposition upon a Crown witness (which was not being contested on admissibility grounds), the applicant argued that the material concerning prior dealing or use should have been edited. The applicant's counsel highlighted that normally, evidence of character is admitted under statutory provisions, such as section 8 of the Evidence Act of Western Australia, when bad character is alleged against a Crown witness or good character is put forward by the defence. This, it was submitted, was a distinct issue from the present case.