P. Mickelberg v The Queen; R. Mickelberg v The Queen

These proceedings concern applications for special leave to appeal by P. Mickelberg and R. Mickelberg against a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal. The applicants sought to challenge their convictions, with a central focus on the admissibility and weight of unsigned confessional statements made during police interviews.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury to give a warning regarding the potential unreliability of unsigned confessional statements, particularly when such statements formed a significant part of the prosecution's case and were uncorroborated by independent evidence. The applicants argued that the Court of Criminal Appeal had wrongly dismissed the relevance of the "Hancock tape" in this regard.

The Court considered its recent decision in *CARR's case*, which established that a warning should generally be given where the prosecution relies heavily, or entirely, on uncorroborated unsigned confessional statements, acknowledging the perceptible risk of fabrication. The applicants contended that the trial judge's directions, which presented the police evidence of these statements as "very strong evidence" of guilt without any such warning, constituted a misdirection. The applicants also highlighted a supposed "reverse identification" scenario presented by the police evidence, which they argued was fallacious and unsupported by the evidence of Mr Henry himself.