Longman v The Queen

This matter came before the High Court of Australia concerning an appeal by the applicant, Longman, against a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal. The central dispute revolved around whether a specific direction regarding the complainant's testimony should have been given at trial, and whether the failure to provide such a direction constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the argument concerning the necessity of a general direction, distinct from a true corroboration direction, had been properly raised before the Court of Criminal Appeal. The applicant contended that this argument, relating to the age of the complainant and the significant lapse of time since the alleged offences, was indeed put before the Court of Criminal Appeal and that its omission from the trial judge's charge led to a miscarriage of justice. Conversely, the respondent argued that these specific matters were not raised in the grounds of appeal before the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The High Court was required to examine the transcript of the proceedings before the Court of Criminal Appeal to determine if the applicant's submissions regarding the need for a specific direction had been adequately presented. The applicant's counsel referred to various pages of the transcript, asserting that the argument was "fairly and squarely raised." This argument, as presented, focused on the trial judge's decision to present the complainant's testimony against the appellant's as a contest of credibility, without stressing the necessity for the jury to be positively satisfied of the complainant's version of events. The respondent, however, maintained that neither the age of the complainant nor the time elapsed since the offence was raised as a matter requiring a specific direction, nor was it argued that the failure to provide such directions led to a miscarriage of justice.