Mule v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the appellant, who had been convicted of possessing a prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply. The central issue arose from a videotape of a police interview with the appellant, which was admitted into evidence and contained both admissions and exculpatory statements.

The legal questions before the Court were whether the trial judge's direction to the jury regarding the weight to be given to the appellant's exculpatory statements was correct, and whether this direction undermined the appellant's right to remain silent at trial, given that he did not give evidence.

The Court, affirming the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal, held that the trial judge's direction was appropriate. The reasoning was that exculpatory statements made out of court, unlike admissions, have not been made on oath or tested by cross-examination. Therefore, a judge may properly direct a jury that such statements may not carry the same weight as admissions. This principle, supported by English and South Australian authorities, was considered not to infringe upon the right to silence, as the jury was not bound to give less weight to the exculpatory statements but was merely informed of a potential difference in their evidentiary value.

The appeal was dismissed.