Humphries v The Queen

The case of *Humphries v The Queen* involved an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Terrence Douglas Humphries, sought to challenge a decision of the Federal Court which had dismissed his appeal against a conviction. The Crown was represented by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Federal Court, in considering the appellant's appeal, had adequately performed its function of independently assessing the evidence to determine if the jury's verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The appellant argued that the Federal Court had failed to undertake this independent examination, particularly in light of scientific evidence that he contended should have raised a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury.

The appellant's argument relied heavily on the principles established in *Morris v The Queen*, a decision of the High Court delivered after the Federal Court had heard the appellant's appeal. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Federal Court had not independently examined the evidence in the manner required by *Morris v The Queen*, which emphasised the appellate court's duty to make a careful and independent assessment of the evidence to determine if a verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory. The appellant contended that the Federal Court had not properly considered the qualitative worth of the scientific evidence in conjunction with the other evidence presented at trial, and therefore had not performed the task of assessing whether a reasonable doubt should have arisen.