Kalajzich v The Queen; Orrock v The Queen

In *Kalajzich v The Queen* and *Orrock v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered applications for special leave to appeal against decisions of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. The applicants, Kalajzich and Orrock, were convicted of criminal offences. Their appeals to the Court of Criminal Appeal had been dismissed.

The primary legal issue before the High Court concerned the sufficiency of directions given by the trial judge regarding corroboration of accomplice evidence. Specifically, the applicants sought to argue that the corroborative evidence relied upon by the Crown was insufficient because its significance and force depended entirely on the evidence of the accomplices themselves. Furthermore, they contended that the corroborative evidence was merely "a straw in the wind" and not sufficiently significant or substantial to meet the legal requirements for corroboration.

The applicants argued that the Court of Criminal Appeal's judgment, if allowed to stand, would render traditional judicial precautions regarding accomplice evidence a "hollow sham." They submitted that there were conflicting decisions from superior courts across Australia on what constitutes valid corroboration, and that their application sought a definitive ruling on this important aspect of criminal law. The applicants' counsel emphasised that they were not merely arguing that the trial judge had wrongly identified certain items as corroboration, but rather were seeking to establish a principle regarding the nature and quality of evidence required to corroborate accomplice testimony.