Stalker v The Queen

In the case of Stalker v The Queen, the appellant, having been convicted of murder, appealed against both the conviction and the sentence imposed. The dispute centred around the adequacy of the summing up by the trial judge to the jury, particularly in relation to discrepancies between the evidence presented by the Crown and the defence. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues that the court was required to address were whether the summing up to the jury appropriately addressed the evidence of particular significance concerning the discrepancies between the Crown's and the defence's case, and whether the Longman warning, issued by the trial judge, was sufficient to safeguard the jury against convicting on the basis of uncorroborated evidence. The court also considered whether the trial judge's summing up could be seen as a miscarriage of justice, which would necessitate a retrial.

The High Court found that the summing up by the trial judge did not adequately address the significance of the discrepancies in the evidence. The court held that the Longman warning was insufficient to properly guide the jury on the importance of corroboration when assessing the evidence. Consequently, the court concluded that the trial judge's summing up amounted to a miscarriage of justice, leading to the appellant's conviction being quashed and a retrial ordered. The court also noted that the sentence would need to be reviewed in light of the retrial.