Mallard v The Queen

In the High Court, Mallard, the appellant, petitioned the Court for leave to appeal against a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The petitioner sought to appeal against his conviction and sentence for the murder of a police officer. The legal issues before the Court were whether the Court should permit the appeal by reference from the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth and, if so, what principles should guide the Court's approach to the appeal. The Court held that the appeal should be allowed and that the principles guiding such an appeal should focus on whether the evidence in question would likely have affected the outcome of the trial and, if so, whether a miscarriage of justice would have occurred. The Court found that the evidence in question would have likely affected the outcome of the trial, and that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. The Court found that the evidence of the polygraph examination was inadmissible and that the non-disclosure of this evidence by the Crown was a serious breach of the principles of natural justice. The Court found that the confession by the petitioner was not a genuine confession but rather a mere theorising about how the crime was committed.

The Court ordered that the appeal be allowed, the conviction and sentence be quashed, and that a new trial be held. The Court further ordered that the results of the polygraph examination be excluded from evidence in any future trial and that the petitioner be released on bail pending the new trial. The Court held that the evidence of the polygraph examination was inadmissible as it was unreliable and had the potential to mislead the jury. The Court held that the non-disclosure of this evidence by the Crown was a serious breach of the principles of natural justice and that this breach had resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The Court held that the confession by the petitioner was not a genuine confession but rather a mere theorising about how the crime was committed, and that this evidence should not have been admitted into evidence. The Court held that the admission of this evidence had resulted in a miscarriage of justice.