Slater v The Queen

The case of Slater v The Queen involved the appellant appealing against his conviction for indecent dealing without consent with a child between the ages of 13 and 16 years. The trial judge had ruled that evidence of the supply of liquor to juveniles on other occasions was not admissible. The appellant also challenged the admissibility of evidence to prove that he had lied to police during his videotaped interview, as well as the extent to which exculpatory statements he made during the interview on collateral issues justified the prosecution tendering evidence to refute the explanations he provided. The High Court of Australia considered the appeal and determined the legal issues concerning the admissibility of evidence and the prejudicial effect of such evidence compared with its probative value.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the evidence of the supply of liquor to juveniles was relevant and admissible, and whether the evidence of the appellant's alleged lies to police and the exculpatory statements made in his videotaped interview could be used to refute his explanations. The court examined the principles governing the admissibility of evidence and the balancing test required when considering the prejudicial effect of such evidence against its probative value. The court also considered the appropriate test for granting a new trial in light of fresh evidence and whether the trial judge had erred in excluding the evidence in question.

The court found that the trial judge had erred in excluding the evidence of the supply of liquor to juveniles on other occasions, as it was relevant to the appellant's propensity to engage in unlawful conduct with minors. The court also held that the evidence of the appellant's alleged lies and exculpatory statements could be used to refute his explanations, as they were relevant to his credibility and the truthfulness of his account. The court concluded that the prejudicial effect of this evidence did not outweigh its probative value. Finally, the court determined that the trial judge's error in excluding the evidence warranted the grant of a new trial. The appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and a retrial was ordered.