R v Hein

The appeal concerned a conviction for aggravated robbery. The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in several respects, including being bound by an earlier ruling on a voir dire by a different judge, allowing cross-examination on the voir dire regarding the truthfulness of admissions made to police, failing to exclude evidence of a police interview on the grounds of unfairness, and providing a flawed direction to the jury concerning the use of suggested lies. The appeal was heard by Vanstone, Kelly, and Peek JJ.

The central legal issues before the Full Court were whether the trial judge was obligated to follow the previous voir dire ruling, whether the cross-examination on the truth of admissions during the voir dire was permissible, and whether the police interview evidence should have been excluded due to unfairness. Additionally, the court considered whether the jury direction regarding the use of alleged lies by the appellant was misleading.

The Full Court allowed the appeal, finding that the main part of the police interview should have been excluded and that the direction on lies was likely to mislead the jury. The court noted that the combination of these errors meant the proviso could not be applied. While not assessing the full impact of excluding the interview evidence on the prosecution's case, the court concluded that a retrial was appropriate. The court also made observations regarding cross-examination on the truth of admissions during a voir dire and the application of section 285AB of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935.

The conviction was set aside, and a new trial was ordered. Kelly J agreed with the reasons and orders proposed by Vanstone J, though preferring not to comment on specific aspects of the trial judge's decisions.