Mickelberg v The Queen

The case of Mickelberg and others versus The Queen involved the petitioners, who had been convicted in 1983 of conspiring to defraud the Director of the Perth Mint and various offences committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. The petitioners sought the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, which was referred to the court for determination as if it were an appeal. The central issue before the court was whether the reference of the whole case to be heard and determined as if it were an appeal was appropriate, given the significant doubt about the police evidence upon which the Crown's case at trial heavily relied.

The court had to determine whether there was a substantial possibility that the jury reached its verdict in reliance on false evidence and was consequently misled in the manner in which it reached its conclusion. The court applied the test for fresh evidence, considering whether there was a significant possibility that, in the light of all the admissible evidence, a jury, acting reasonably, would have acquitted the accused. Additionally, the court had to evaluate whether there was a substantial possibility that the jury may have been mistaken or misled in the manner in which it reached its conviction, particularly in light of the recanting evidence from a key witness. The court closely examined the evidence of the recanting witness and assessed its relevance, cogency, and credibility, taking into account all relevant factors.

In conclusion, the court found that the reference of the whole case to be heard and determined as if it were an appeal was appropriate. The court determined that there was a significant doubt about the reliability of the police evidence and a substantial possibility that the jury may have been misled in reaching its verdict. The fresh evidence provided a significant possibility that a jury, acting reasonably, would have acquitted the accused. The court's decision was grounded in the need to prevent a miscarriage of justice where there was a substantial possibility that the jury's decision was based on false evidence.