R v Hunter (No 12)

The case of R v Hunter (No 12) involved the appellant, a convicted offender, who appealed against his conviction on the basis of the reliability of a witness’s evidence. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia, which had the authority to consider the matter under the provisions of the Australian Constitution. The primary issue before the court was whether the certificate issued under section 128 of the Evidence Act, which protected a witness from being questioned about their credibility in relation to previous statements, also safeguarded the witness from being questioned about the veracity of those statements. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the certificate precluded the defence from questioning the witness about the truth of the evidence they had previously given while under oath in the current proceedings.

The High Court, in delivering its judgment, examined the legislative intent behind section 128 of the Evidence Act. The court concluded that the purpose of the certificate was to protect a witness from being questioned about their credibility, not from being challenged on the truthfulness of their statements. The court reasoned that if a witness could not be questioned about the truth of their evidence, it would undermine the fundamental principles of fairness in criminal proceedings. Therefore, the certificate did not shield the witness from being questioned about the truthfulness of their previous statements. The court held that the defence was entitled to raise the issue of the witness's credibility and the truthfulness of their statements with the witness during cross-examination, subject to any other legal constraints.

In light of its findings, the High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the appellant's conviction. The matter was remitted back to the lower court for a fresh trial, ensuring that the appellant had the opportunity to properly challenge the witness’s evidence in accordance with the law. The court did not make any further orders beyond what was necessary to remit the case for retrial.