Jamieson v The Queen

The applicant, Stephen Wayne Jamieson, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against his conviction. The dispute concerned alleged misconduct by the Crown Prosecutor during the applicant's trial and the refusal by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal to admit expert evidence challenging the authenticity of the applicant's record of interview. The applicant contended that these matters deprived him of a real chance of acquittal.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the Crown Prosecutor's conduct amounted to misconduct that prejudiced the applicant's defence, and whether the Court of Criminal Appeal erred in law by refusing to admit expert evidence concerning the record of interview. The applicant's defence was that he was not the individual known as "Shorty" involved in the assault and killing of Miss Balding, and that another person, Mark Wells, was the actual perpetrator.

The applicant argued that the Crown had made a decision not to charge or call Mark Wells as a witness, despite evidence from other participants and the applicant himself implicating Wells. The applicant further submitted that the Crown's investigation into Wells' involvement, which had been a concern of the judge in a prior aborted trial, was inadequate. This investigation, it was argued, relied on outdated psychiatric reports suggesting Wells was unreliable due to schizophrenia, and the Crown's decision not to call Wells was made based on these reports, which were significantly old by the time the decision was finalised. The applicant's central contention was that the Crown Prosecutor's actions and the exclusion of expert evidence undermined the fairness of the trial.