Mickelberg v The Queen

The case of *Mickelberg v The Queen* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia by the applicant, Mickelberg, against his conviction for conspiracy to defraud. The applicant and his co-conspirators were alleged to have engaged in a scheme to defraud the Commonwealth Bank of Australia by presenting forged documents to obtain a loan.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting certain evidence, specifically a confession made by a co-conspirator, which the applicant argued was inadmissible against him. The applicant contended that the admission of this confession, which implicated him in the conspiracy, prejudiced his defence and led to an unsafe conviction.

The High Court considered the principles governing the admissibility of confessions made by co-conspirators in joint criminal enterprises. Their Honours applied the rule that a confession made by one conspirator is generally not admissible against another conspirator unless it falls within an exception to the hearsay rule, such as where the confession is made in furtherance of the conspiracy. In this instance, the court found that the confession in question was made after the conspiracy had been discovered and was not made in furtherance of the illegal enterprise. Consequently, the High Court held that the admission of the confession was an error.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.