Matthews v The Queen

This matter concerns an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia by Douglas James Matthews against the respondent, The Queen. The applicant sought to challenge a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of South Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether out-of-court statements, which did not explicitly express an intention, could be relied upon to infer the maker's future state of mind. Furthermore, the applicant questioned whether such an inferred future state of mind could then be used to infer the maker's likely future conduct, thereby undermining an accused's account of events. The applicant argued that the Court of Criminal Appeal had erroneously extended the principles established in *Walton v The Queen* and acted inconsistently with remarks made in *R v Wilson* and the approach taken by the House of Lords in *R v Blastland*.

The applicant contended that state of mind evidence should generally be admissible only to prove the maker's state of mind at the time the statement was made, if that state of mind is in issue, or to prove a future intention to perform an act. The Court of Criminal Appeal had permitted the use of statements to infer a future state of mind and, subsequently, to infer future conduct. This was particularly relevant to proving the relationship between the parties, which the Court of Criminal Appeal found to be relevant to both rape and murder charges.

The High Court granted special leave to appeal on the specific ground relating to the admissibility of state of mind evidence.