Kotvas v The Queen

The appellant was convicted of recklessly causing serious injury and affray. The conviction was challenged on appeal to the High Court of Australia. The appellant argued that the jury direction in relation to circumstantial evidence was inadequate and that the direction concerning expert evidence was misconceived. The appellant also argued that evidence of a potential eyewitness was wrongly treated as consistent with the Crown case at trial, and that the Crown was now attempting to discredit the witness on appeal.

The High Court held that the jury direction in relation to circumstantial evidence was not entirely satisfactory but did not lead to a miscarriage of justice. The court found that the direction concerning expert evidence was misconceived, but this error did not affect the safety of the verdicts. The court held that the evidence of the potential eyewitness was wrongly treated as consistent with the Crown case at trial. The Crown conceded on appeal that the evidence was inconsistent with its case. The court found that it was not possible to assess the credibility of the witness on the appeal and that it would be unjust to the appellant to order a retrial.

The High Court found that the appellant's convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court held that in the 'exceptional' circumstances, it would be appropriate to enter a verdict of acquittal on both charges. The court noted that the appellant had already served a significant period of imprisonment and that it would be unjust to subject the appellant to a further trial. The court found that the appellant's convictions should be quashed and that verdicts of acquittal should be entered on both charges.