Ivusic v The Queen

The case of *Ivusic v The Queen* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia following a conviction for the offence of receiving stolen property. The appellant, Ivusic, had been found guilty of receiving a quantity of stolen goods, and his conviction was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central dispute revolved around the admissibility of certain evidence presented at trial.

The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of the appellant's prior convictions. Specifically, the court had to consider whether this evidence was relevant to establishing the appellant's knowledge that the goods were stolen, or if it was improperly admitted as character evidence, thereby prejudicing the appellant's right to a fair trial.

The Court held that the admission of the prior convictions was improper. It reasoned that while evidence of prior convictions can be admissible to prove knowledge or intent in certain circumstances, the evidence in this case did not sufficiently demonstrate that the prior offences were so similar in nature or occurred in such proximity to the present offence as to establish a pattern or rebut a defence of innocent receipt. The Court applied the principle that evidence of prior convictions should not be admitted if its primary effect is to suggest that the accused is a person of bad character who is likely to have committed the offence charged.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.