Milat v The Queen

[2004] HCATrans 179

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S230 of 2002

B e t w e e n -
IVAN ROBERT MARKO MILAT
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

GUMMOW J
HAYNE J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 28 MAY 2004, AT 9.32 AM

MR G.E. SMITH: If the Court pleases, I appear for the respondent. (instructed by the Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (New South Wales))

GUMMOW J: Thank you, Mr Smith. We do not need to hear from you.

We have considered this application on the papers and we now state our conclusions as follows. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. None of the matters now raised by the applicant demonstrates that it is arguable that there has been any miscarriage of justice in this matter. We add that the application for special leave to appeal was brought outside the time fixed by the Rules. Because the application for special leave would fail, the application for extension of time should be dismissed.

We will now adjourn to reconstitute.

AT 9.33 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal by Ivan Milat against his conviction for murder. Milat was convicted in the Supreme Court of New South Wales of the murders of seven backpackers. The appeal concerned the admissibility of certain evidence, specifically evidence relating to the discovery of a particular type of fishing rod and the admissibility of evidence concerning other alleged offences.

The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of the discovery of a particular brand of fishing rod found near the bodies of some of the victims, and whether evidence of other alleged offences, which were not part of the indictment, should have been admitted. Milat argued that the fishing rod evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial, and that the evidence of other offences was improperly admitted under the tendency or coincidence limb of the rule against hearsay and similar fact evidence.

The High Court considered the principles governing the admissibility of evidence, particularly the relevance of evidence and the application of the rule against hearsay and similar fact evidence. The Court found that the fishing rod evidence was relevant because it tended to show that the offender possessed items that were found with the victims, thereby connecting the offender to the crimes. Regarding the evidence of other alleged offences, the Court examined whether such evidence possessed sufficient probative value to outweigh its prejudicial effect, a key consideration under the similar fact evidence rule. The Court ultimately held that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the evidence in question.

The appeal was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established