Jamieson v The Queen

The applicant, Leigh Garfield Jamieson, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Court of Appeal. The dispute concerned the applicant's prosecution under section 176(2) of the Crimes Act, which involved the payment of money to an agent of a principal with whom the applicant had business dealings.

The legal issues before the High Court included the interpretation of section 186(2) of the Crimes Act, particularly its effect on the burden of proof in criminal proceedings. Specifically, the court was asked to consider whether the trial judge had erred in directing the jury that upon proof of certain circumstances under section 186(2), the applicant bore the burden of proving he had not acted in contravention of section 176(2). A further issue was whether the trial judge had adequately distinguished between the concepts of intent and knowledge in relation to the offence.

The applicant argued that section 186(2) created a reverse onus of proof, requiring the applicant to prove he had not acted in contravention of section 176(2) once certain facts were established. It was submitted that this reversed the burden of proof on intent, and that the trial judge's charge failed to distinguish between intent and knowledge, which were distinct concepts in criminal proceedings. The applicant contended that the trial judge, and two justices of the Court of Appeal, had not drawn this crucial distinction.