Pantorno v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Pantorno, against his conviction for armed robbery. The applicant had been found guilty by a jury in the Supreme Court of Victoria and subsequently appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which dismissed his appeal. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained during the investigation of the offence.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of the applicant's prior convictions and prior convictions of a co-accused, which had been presented to the jury. The applicant argued that this evidence was unfairly prejudicial and should have been excluded under the rules of evidence, particularly concerning the tendency of such evidence to suggest that the applicant had a propensity to commit criminal acts.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the admission of the evidence of prior convictions was an error. The Court reasoned that the evidence of prior convictions of the applicant and his co-accused was not relevant to any issue in dispute in the trial for armed robbery, other than to suggest that the applicant had a disposition to commit offences of that kind. Such evidence, the Court stated, was highly prejudicial and its admission deprived the applicant of a fair trial. The legal principle applied was that evidence of prior convictions is generally inadmissible unless it has a specific relevance to an issue in the current proceedings, beyond merely showing a propensity to commit crime.

The High Court quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial.