Merritt v The Queen

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia by the applicant, Merritt, against the Crown. The dispute arose from issues surrounding disputed oral confessions made by the applicant.

The legal issues before the High Court involved the adequacy of the Court of Criminal Appeal's consideration of a challenge based on an unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict, particularly in light of the difficulties and dangers associated with disputed oral confessions. The applicant also sought to have the High Court reconsider the role of the trial judge in admitting such evidence, especially where the judge might not be satisfied that a required caution would be effective in the circumstances.

The applicant's argument focused on two main points. Firstly, it was contended that the Court of Criminal Appeal failed to adequately account for the inherent dangers of disputed oral confessions, as recognised in cases like *McKinney* and *Carr*, when assessing the safety of the verdict. The applicant argued that the appellate court's reliance on the jury's assessment of credibility effectively negated its own responsibilities. Secondly, the applicant submitted that if appellate courts face realistic difficulties in independently assessing evidence of disputed oral confessions, the High Court should revisit the trial judge's role in determining admissibility, drawing on principles from cases such as *The Crown v R* and *Doney*.