Prentice v The Queen

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia by Mark Anthony Prentice against The Queen. The core of the dispute revolved around the admissibility of a confession made by the applicant.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the Court of Criminal Appeal erred in its consideration of the voluntariness of the confession, and whether a concession of voluntariness made at first instance, in the context of a special hearing where the applicant was unfit to give instructions, should bind the applicant. Specifically, the applicant argued that despite the concession, the evidence raised the question of voluntariness, and the trial judge had an obligation to consider this issue.

The applicant's counsel argued that the concession of voluntariness should not be treated as binding in the same way as it would be at a normal trial. This submission was based on the unique circumstances of a special hearing, where the applicant was unfit and incapable of providing instructions on factual matters surrounding his interrogation. Counsel contended that the principles established in *MacPherson's case*, which held that a trial judge must consider voluntariness if the evidence raises the issue, applied even where the accused was represented, particularly in situations involving unfitness and special hearings.