R v Hillier

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the Crown against a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory. The Court of Appeal had quashed the murder conviction of Mr Hillier and entered a verdict of acquittal. The dispute concerned the extent of the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under the *Supreme Court Act 1933* (ACT) and the principles governing its exercise, particularly whether it was unjust or unsafe to allow the jury's verdict to stand.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the Court of Appeal erred in its reasoning that a conviction should be quashed if evidence, viewed in isolation, was consistent with innocence. The Court was required to determine whether the Court of Appeal should have considered whether it was open to the jury, on the whole of the evidence, to be satisfied of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court also considered the circumstances in which special leave to appeal would be granted to the prosecution against an acquittal entered by an intermediate appellate court.

The High Court found that the Court of Appeal's majority reasoning was erroneous. It held that the significance of evidence should not be assessed in isolation but rather in the context of the entire body of evidence. The Court emphasised that if an intermediate appellate court reaches its order by a path not in accordance with proper principle, it is in the interests of the administration of justice to correct that error.

Special leave to appeal was granted, and the appeal was allowed. The orders of the Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory were set aside, and the matter was remitted to that Court for rehearing. One judge, however, would have ordered a retrial rather than a rehearing.