PFC v The Queen

The applicant, PFC, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. The dispute concerned whether the trial judge ought to have given a direction to the jury regarding the applicant's decision to give sworn evidence in his defence. The Crown was represented by Mr R.O. Blanch, QC, and Mr P.J.P. Power, while the applicant was represented by Mr P.J. Hidden, QC.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether a judge, in a criminal trial in New South Wales, was obliged or permitted to direct the jury that the fact an accused person chose to give sworn evidence, rather than remaining silent or making an unsworn statement, was a matter to which they could give weight. This involved considering the historical basis and fairness of such directions, particularly in light of the Crown's burden of proof and the accused's right to remain silent.

Mr Hidden, for the applicant, argued that while an accused's evidence should be evaluated like any other witness, the choice to give sworn evidence, as opposed to an unsworn statement or silence, was a relevant matter for the jury to consider. He contended that this practice, though largely devoid of direct authority, had become common in New South Wales as a matter of fairness, acknowledging the "tough option" taken by the accused. The Court questioned the historical basis for such directions and whether it was appropriate to accord credit to an accused for choosing to give evidence, given that witnesses can also lie.