Nicholls v The Queen

The case of *Nicholls v The Queen* concerned appeals by Thomas Nicholls and Martin Graeme Coates against their convictions for murder, following a jury trial in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The appeals were dismissed by the Western Australian Court of Criminal Appeal, and subsequently, special leave to appeal was granted by the High Court of Australia. The Crown's case against Coates, in particular, relied heavily on the evidence of Adam John Davis, who had pleaded guilty to the murder and agreed to give evidence against the other accused.

The High Court was required to determine several key legal issues. Firstly, it considered the admissibility of admissions allegedly made by Coates to police during a break in a videotaped interview, and whether there was a "reasonable excuse" for these admissions not being recorded on video, as required by s 570D of the *Criminal Code* (WA). Secondly, the Court examined the admissibility of evidence of a prior inconsistent statement made by Davis, specifically whether such evidence could be admitted as an exception to the rule against the admission of collateral statements, and if the detail of the alleged statement required it to be put specifically to Davis in cross-examination. This also involved considering whether the evidence was hearsay and if any exceptions to the hearsay rule applied. Finally, the Court reviewed the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the evidence of admissions and the potential for perjury by police, in light of the principles established in *McKinney v The Queen*.

The Court reasoned that the admissibility of admissions made off-video depended on whether a reasonable excuse existed for the failure to record them. Regarding the prior inconsistent statement of Davis, the Court applied the collateral evidence rule, which generally prohibits evidence that contradicts a witness on a collateral matter. However, exceptions exist, such as where the statement demonstrates bias, interest, or corruption. The Court held that for such exceptions to apply, the specific details of the alleged statement, indicating bias or corruption, must be put to the witness in cross-examination. The Court found that the trial judge's directions on the admissions and the potential for perjury were adequate and did not require a specific *McKinney* direction in the circumstances.

The appeals were dismissed.