Males v The Queen

The appellant appealed against a decision of the County Court of Victoria to refuse to discharge a jury on the basis that it was likely that the change of arrangements for the complainant to give evidence would prejudice the appellant. The appellant was charged with sexual offences against the complainant, and the case was heard in the County Court. The complainant initially gave evidence behind a screen, but the arrangements were changed so that she gave evidence from a remote facility. The appellant's application to discharge the jury was refused, and the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court were whether the change of arrangements for the complainant to give evidence would be prejudicial to the appellant and whether the interlocutory decision was of sufficient importance to justify determination on interlocutory appeal. The court considered the risk to the fairness of the trial and the available inferences that the jury might draw from the change of arrangements. The court held that the change of arrangements carried a significant risk of prejudice, and it was uncertain whether the jury directions would avert that prejudice. The court also held that the judge was satisfied that the decision was of sufficient importance to justify determination on interlocutory appeal.

The court allowed the appeal and granted leave for the appeal to proceed. The court held that the refusal of the application to discharge the jury was not reasonably open because of the significant risk of prejudice to the appellant. The court also held that the judge's decision to certify the interlocutory decision was not reasonably open because it was of sufficient importance to justify determination on interlocutory appeal. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed, the decision of the County Court be quashed, and the matter be remitted to the County Court for further proceedings.

This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that the fairness of a trial is not compromised by changes to the arrangements for a complainant to give evidence in a sexual offence case. It also underscores the need for judges to carefully consider the risk of prejudice to the accused when deciding whether to certify an interlocutory decision for appeal.