Jacobs (a pseudonym) v The Queen

The applicant, referred to as Jacobs, was convicted of multiple sexual offences following three separate trials. In the first trial, Jacobs was convicted of one charge of rape, while in the second trial, he was convicted on two charges of rape. In the third trial, Jacobs was convicted of one charge of rape. Jacobs appealed the convictions, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting certain evidence, which led to a substantial miscarriage of justice. The legal issues for the court to determine were whether the trial judge erred in admitting the expert evidence of a psychiatrist and the lease of the studio apartment as credibility evidence, and whether such errors led to a substantial miscarriage of justice.

The court examined the evidence in question, considering whether the expert evidence of the psychiatrist was capable of rationally affecting the assessment of facts in issue. The court also considered whether the lease of the studio apartment was admissible as credibility evidence under the Evidence Act 2008. The court found that the expert evidence was not capable of rationally affecting the assessment of facts in issue, and therefore, its admission was erroneous. Similarly, the court found that the lease of the studio apartment was not admissible as credibility evidence, and its admission led to a substantial miscarriage of justice.

The court allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions in the first and second proceedings due to the erroneous admission of expert evidence. The court also allowed the appeal in the third proceeding and quashed the conviction due to the erroneous admission of the lease of the studio apartment as credibility evidence. The court found that the errors in admitting the evidence led to a substantial miscarriage of justice. As a result, the applicant's convictions were quashed, and he was granted leave to appeal.