MDP v The King

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal by MDP against his convictions for sexual offences. The convictions arose from a trial in the District Court of Queensland where the appellant was found guilty by a jury of 16 counts of sexual offences against his stepdaughter. The prosecution had led evidence from the complainant's sister, K, that the appellant had smacked the complainant's backside. This evidence was admitted without objection and the trial judge directed the jury that they could use it as evidence of the appellant's sexual interest in the complainant and his preparedness to act on it.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the trial judge's direction to the jury, permitting the use of K's evidence as propensity evidence, constituted a "wrong decision on a question of law" under section 668E(1)(ii) of the Criminal Code (Qld). The court was also required to consider whether such a wrong decision had the necessary materiality threshold to establish a substantial miscarriage of justice, and if the proviso under section 668E(1A) of the Criminal Code (Qld) applied, meaning no substantial miscarriage of justice had actually occurred. The admissibility of K's evidence itself, as relationship evidence, was also a point of contention, with it being accepted that the Court of Appeal had erred in finding it admissible under section 132B of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld).

The High Court reasoned that while the trial judge's direction regarding the use of K's evidence as propensity evidence was a wrong decision on a question of law, it did not meet the materiality threshold required to establish a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court found that this decision was not fundamental to the trial and could not realistically have affected the jury's reasoning to a guilty verdict. Furthermore, the court determined that the proviso under section 668E(1A) of the Criminal Code (Qld) could not be applied to dismiss the appeal, as an independent assessment of the evidence to conclude guilt beyond reasonable doubt was not possible given the contested issues of credit and the absence of the full trial record.

Consequently, the High Court granted special leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Court of Appeal of Queensland, and in its place, allowed the appellant's appeal to the Court of Appeal, setting aside his convictions and ordering a new trial.