R v J Lucas; R v B Lucas (No 7)

The appellants were convicted by a jury of various offences including possessing firearms and possessing dangerous devices, and were sentenced to imprisonment. They appealed against their convictions, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence given by two expert witnesses on extreme right-wing ideology. The Crown accepted that the evidence was of limited probative value, but argued that it was relevant to the charge of possessing dangerous devices, and that the trial judge had exercised his discretion correctly in admitting it. The appellants argued that the evidence was irrelevant, prejudicial, and would be given undue weight by the jury. The High Court of Australia allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge had erred in admitting the evidence, and quashed the convictions and sentences. The Court held that the evidence of both experts was largely irrelevant to the issues in the case, and that it was highly likely that the jury would give the evidence undue weight. The evidence was therefore inadmissible. The Crown’s appeal against the quashing of the convictions and sentences was dismissed.

The appeal raised questions about the admissibility of expert evidence regarding the ideology and symbols of extreme right-wing groups. The appellants argued that the evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial, and that the trial judge had erred in admitting it. The Crown accepted that the evidence was of limited probative value, but argued that it was relevant to the charge of possessing dangerous devices, and that the trial judge had exercised his discretion correctly in admitting it. The Court held that the evidence was largely irrelevant to the issues in the case, and that it was highly likely that the jury would give the evidence undue weight. The Court held that the trial judge had therefore erred in admitting the evidence, and that the convictions and sentences were quashed. The Court dismissed the Crown’s appeal against the quashing of the convictions and sentences.