PM v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by PM against a conviction for sexual offences. The dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence during the trial, specifically evidence relating to the complainant's prior sexual history.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of the complainant's sexual history, which the appellant argued was irrelevant and prejudicial. This involved an interpretation of the relevant provisions of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth) concerning the admissibility of such evidence, particularly where it might be seen as going to the complainant's credibility or propensity.

The High Court analysed the purpose for which the evidence was admitted and its potential impact on the jury's assessment of the case. The Court affirmed that evidence of a complainant's sexual history is generally inadmissible unless it meets specific exceptions designed to ensure fairness and prevent undue prejudice. The judges considered the balance between the probative value of the evidence and its potential to mislead or inflame the jury, ultimately finding that the admission of the evidence in this instance constituted a miscarriage of justice.

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