Iskandar v The King

The case of Iskandar v The King involved an appeal against a conviction for complicity in a murder, commonly referred to as an “honour killing.” The High Court of Australia heard the appeal and was required to consider the merits of the arguments raised by the applicant, Iskandar, who claimed that a lengthy delay in instituting the appeal and certain aspects of the prosecution's conduct led to a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the court considered whether the trial judge should have provided a specific direction to the jury regarding the theory of an “honour killing” and whether the conditions of the applicant's incarceration constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The court examined whether the prosecutor's conduct, including cross-examination about the applicant's religious beliefs, amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The court noted that while such conduct might not have been necessary, it was not improper given the early disclosure of the prosecution's opening statement. The court highlighted that the applicant did not object to this approach at the trial, and it would be presumptuous to predict the likely outcome of the trial if the objectionable conduct had not occurred. The High Court had reserved judgment on the issue of miscarriage of justice, making it a befuddling task to determine whether a miscarriage had actually occurred. Despite these considerations, the court found that the prosecution's case was strong, and thus, the proviso for leave to appeal was not applicable.

The court also assessed whether the trial judge should have directed the jury on the theory of an “honour killing,” requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the judge's directions on circumstantial evidence were orthodox and correct. Furthermore, the court held that since no specific direction was sought at the trial, there was no merit in this ground of appeal. Finally, the court considered whether the conditions of incarceration constituted a miscarriage of justice. Despite acknowledging that the issue of conditions was serious, the court found that no miscarriage had been established given the trial judge's sympathetic approach and the granting of adjournments when requested.