Kanbut v The The King

The applicant in this case was convicted by a jury of four counts of sexual slavery and two counts of money laundering. The Crown's case was that the applicant had enslaved two sex workers from Thailand, seizing their passports and forcing them to work off a debt. The applicant appealed against his convictions on several grounds, including the adequacy of jury directions concerning his prior good character, the failure of his counsel to adduce good character evidence, and the adequacy of a tendency direction given by the trial judge. The High Court of Australia heard the appeal and found that while some of the grounds were not established, others were.

The legal issues before the court included whether the jury direction concerning the applicant's good character was inadequate because it did not inform the jury that his good character made it less likely that he committed the offences charged. The court found that the error was not established. The court also considered whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred due to the failure of the applicant's counsel to adduce good character evidence from various witnesses. The court found that while the failure to adduce evidence was objectively justified, a miscarriage of justice had occurred due to the tendency direction given by the trial judge.

The court held that the tendency direction was misleading because it corresponded with every particular alleged against the applicant in relation to both complainants. The court found that a miscarriage of justice had been established, but the proviso could not be applied because a critical part of the complainants' evidence had been challenged. The court set aside the applicant's convictions and ordered a new trial.

The court ordered that the applicant's convictions be set aside and a new trial be ordered. The court found that the tendency direction was misleading and that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. However, the proviso could not be applied because a critical part of the complainants' evidence had been challenged. The court held that the failure to adduce good character evidence was objectively justified, and that the error in the jury direction was not established. The court's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that jury directions are clear and accurate, and that counsel provide appropriate evidence to support their client's case.