Standley v The Queen

John Francis Standley applied to the High Court of Australia for an extension of time to seek special leave to appeal against his conviction, and for special leave to appeal against his sentence. The respondent, the State of South Australia, opposed the grant of an extension of time. The Court indicated it would hear arguments on the merits of the application before ruling on the time issue, a practice adopted in similar cases where applications are out of time.

The legal issues before the Court concerned the adequacy of the directions given by the trial judge regarding two key Crown witnesses, and an evidence ruling that allegedly had a significantly prejudicial effect on the applicant's trial. Specifically, the application invited the Court to consider whether a "category system" of witnesses, which necessitates special judicial instructions concerning their testimony, should be maintained in law. The applicant argued for the elimination of the term "corroboration" and the complete removal of witness categorisation, suggesting this aligned with the Court's direction in relation to suspect evidence.

The Court was asked to determine the correctness in law of maintaining categories of witnesses that attract special instructions from a trial judge. The common law position, as presented, is that no obligation attaches to a trial judge to give a special instruction unless a witness falls within a specific category. This position has been modified by statute in certain contexts, such as sexual offences, and for witnesses whose testimony may inherently be suspect. The applicant's submission was that the Court should consider expunging the concept of "corroboration" and eliminating the necessity for witness categories altogether.