R v FH

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus FH, the dispute centred around the refusal of the court to grant an application for a trial by judge alone in a criminal case. The appellant had previously faced a trial where the jury was unable to reach a verdict on eight of the nine charges, but was found guilty on one count. The matter was returned to the court for a re-trial, however, the appellant applied for a trial by judge alone. The legal issues that the court needed to address included the grounds for a trial by judge alone, the circumstances under which a re-trial could be ordered, and the admissibility of fresh evidence in a re-trial. Additionally, the court had to consider the issue of estoppel and whether the appellant was estopped from raising certain arguments in the re-trial.

The court held that the application for a trial by judge alone was refused, as the appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that warranted such a trial. The court reasoned that the appellant's arguments were not novel or untested, and that there was no basis for concluding that a trial by judge alone would result in a fairer trial. The court also found that the appellant was not estopped from raising certain arguments in the re-trial, as the estoppel did not stem from any reasoning process adopted or view of the evidence formed by the presiding judge. Furthermore, the court held that the fresh evidence sought to be adduced by the appellant was not admissible in the re-trial, as it would be unfair to the prosecution to allow such evidence to be introduced at this stage.