Hoyle v The Queen

The appeal concerned a criminal conviction in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The appellant, Hoyle, was convicted of various offences. The appeal raised several grounds, including the admission of further evidence on appeal, the defence of mental impairment, the use of tendency evidence, and alleged errors in jury directions.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the absence of certain fresh evidence at trial amounted to a miscarriage of justice, specifically considering whether the jury would have been reasonably likely to acquit had they been aware of this evidence, and whether its existence would have led the appellant to conduct the trial differently. The Court also had to consider the application of sections 27 and 28 of the *Criminal Code 2002* (ACT) regarding the defence of mental impairment, focusing on whether the appellant understood the nature and quality of his conduct, knew it was wrong, or could not control it. Further issues included the admissibility and prejudicial effect of tendency evidence involving multiple complainants, the propriety of the prosecutor's use of such evidence, and whether any errors by the prosecutor were cured by the trial judge's directions. The adequacy of jury directions concerning the burden and standard of proof, the need for *Liberato* and *Jovanovic* directions regarding complainants' motives to lie, and the application of section 108C of the *Evidence Act 2011* (ACT) to credibility evidence were also central to the appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It found that the fresh evidence sought to be admitted was not of a kind that would have reasonably likely led to an acquittal, nor would it have fundamentally altered the trial strategy. The Court also concluded that the trial judge's directions adequately addressed the issues of mental impairment, tendency evidence, and the burden and standard of proof, and that no *Liberato* or *Jovanovic* directions were necessary in the circumstances. The Court found no miscarriage of justice had occurred.