Pollitt v The Queen

The High Court of Australia heard an application for special leave to appeal in the matter of *Pollitt v The Queen*. The applicant, Pollitt, was represented by Mr R. Richter, QC, and Mr A. Shwartz, while the respondent, The Queen, was represented by Mr B.D. Bongiorno, QC, and Mr N. Papas. The dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence presented at trial.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether certain evidence, specifically concerning telephone conversations and prior meetings between the applicant and a witness, Jennifer McMahon (also known as Jennifer Curillo), should have been excluded. The applicant contended that the evidence presented during the voir dire did not establish that Ms McMahon had spoken to the applicant on the telephone before or after the relevant occasion, and that subsequent amendments to the respondent's statement of facts did not rectify this deficiency.

The Court considered amendments to the respondent's answering statement, which corrected factual assertions regarding a witness being shown a photograph and the nature of prior interactions between Ms McMahon and the applicant. The applicant argued that the original evidentiary basis for the trial judge's ruling on the voir dire was insufficient, and that subsequent amendments were vague and did not cure the fundamental defect. The Court ultimately granted leave for these amendments to be made. The applicant's submissions focused on the limited nature of the evidence against him for the murder of the deceased, Mr Simpson, on 18 September 1984, which essentially comprised the testimony of a few witnesses, including Mr Jones, who testified to driving the applicant to the murder location on multiple occasions.