MB v The Queen - [2010] HCATrans 306

[2010] HCATrans 306

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S256 of 2009

B e t w e e n -
MB
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

FRENCH CJ
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 12 NOVEMBER 2010, AT 11.17 AM

MR C.H. WITHERS: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned junior, MR D.A. HUGHES, for the applicant. (instructed by the applicant)

MS D.M.L. WOODBURNE, SC: May it please the Court, I appear for the respondent. (instructed by Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW))

FRENCH CJ: Yes, Mr Withers.

MR WITHERS: Do your Honours have a copy, or you may not have a copy, of the amended application for special leave? You may have an unsigned copy.

FRENCH CJ: We have the amended application.

MR WITHERS: Yes, your Honour. I have a signed copy here. My client is in prison. I have been unable to obtain his signature on the document but I have a signed copy that is signed by the father.

FRENCH CJ: As long as you undertake to file that we will work off the document you have given us.

MR WITHERS: I undertake to do so. Your Honours, there are two questions that arise on this application. The first is whether or not a miscarriage of justice occurred because the applicant’s trial counsel asked for, and the court agreed to give, a direction as to self‑defence when self‑defence was not reasonably available on the facts of the case. We say it substantially undermined my client’s trial strategy that he was not the perpetrator of the crime. That is the first question.

The second question concerns the admissibility of DNA evidence. There is evidence that it was admitted at trial that the deceased’s DNA was found on the right hand of the accused and that it got there, according to the Crown, when my client stabbed the deceased in the neck with a bottle. That DNA evidence was evidence of a mixed sample of DNA. The possible contributors to that DNA were the accused and the deceased but there was no statistical evidence at all in the case as to the likelihood that that DNA profile, that mixed DNA profile, matched any other member of the general population.

FRENCH CJ: There was no dispute, was there, that your client actually fought with the deceased?

MR WITHERS: There was no dispute about that.

FRENCH CJ: There was physical contact between them?

MR WITHERS: There was physical contact between them, yes. I will come back to this in a second, but in summary, the Crown used the evidence of that DNA to say it was the deceased’s DNA. It got on the hand because the accused stabbed the deceased in the neck with a bottle but there is no evidence to support that. That point was reiterated by the court.

Could I go…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read MB v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] HCATrans 306
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by MB against a conviction for sexual offences. The dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence during MB's trial, specifically evidence relating to the complainant's prior sexual history.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of the complainant's sexual history, which MB argued was irrelevant and prejudicial. This raised questions about the proper application of the rules of evidence, particularly concerning the exclusion of evidence that might improperly influence a jury's decision.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the admission of the evidence in question was a material error. The Court reasoned that the evidence was not relevant to any issue in the trial and its prejudicial effect outweighed any probative value it might have had. The judges applied principles of evidence law that require a careful balancing of relevance and prejudice, emphasizing that evidence should not be admitted if its primary effect is to create an unfair bias against the accused. The conviction was quashed, and a new trial was ordered.

Orders