Robinson v The Queen

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on an application for special leave to appeal by the applicant, Robert Raymond Lloyd Robinson, against the respondent, The Queen. The core of the dispute concerned the proper approach to be taken by a Court of Criminal Appeal when considering fresh evidence and the appropriate directions a trial judge should give to a jury regarding the sworn evidence of an accused person.

The legal issues before the High Court were twofold. Firstly, the applicant sought to challenge the role of the Court of Criminal Appeal in assessing the credibility of fresh evidence. Specifically, the applicant argued that the Court of Criminal Appeal had erred in substituting its own assessment of witness credibility for that of a reasonable jury. Secondly, the applicant raised questions concerning the proper directions to be given to a jury when assessing the sworn evidence of an accused person, particularly in ensuring a fair trial.

The applicant contended that the fresh evidence presented to the Court of Criminal Appeal was both relevant and critical to determining whether the Crown's corroborating evidence was capable of corroboration and whether the complainant's account of events was credible. The applicant submitted that a Court of Criminal Appeal, when considering fresh evidence where credibility is an issue, should determine whether a reasonable jury *could* accept the evidence as true, rather than whether the court itself believed it was likely that a jury would believe it. The applicant argued that the Court of Criminal Appeal's assessment of credibility should have been confined to the inherent plausibility of the material, without delving into collateral matters or substituting its own judgment for that of the jury. The applicant sought special leave to enable the High Court to clarify the application of principles established in *Gallagher v Reg* and *Mickelberg v Reg* by Courts of Criminal Appeal.