Hoch v The Queen

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The applicant, Mr Hoch, sought to challenge a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Queensland. The central dispute revolved around the admissibility of similar fact evidence in circumstances where there was a real risk of collaboration amongst complainants.

The legal issue before the High Court was whether the approach taken by the Queensland Court of Criminal Appeal regarding the admissibility of similar fact evidence, particularly in the context of potential collaboration among complainants, was consistent with established principles of fair trial and the theory of relevance of such evidence. The applicant contended that the Queensland court's decision departed from the protections afforded by a fair trial, as articulated by the House of Lords in *Boardman's case* and by the High Court in subsequent decisions such as *Perry* and *Sutton*.

The applicant argued that the cautionary remarks made by Lord Wilberforce and Lord Cross in *Boardman's case* were not mere procedural guidelines but were integral to the reasoning concerning the admissibility of similar fact evidence based on its probative force. The applicant submitted that this probative force is derived from striking similarities between the facts testified to by multiple witnesses, suggesting a common origin or truthfulness. The applicant contended that the Queensland court's approach risked undermining the fundamental guarantee of a fair trial by potentially allowing the admission of evidence without sufficient regard to the risk of collaboration and the necessary degree of probative force.