Stennett v The Queen

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on an application for special leave to appeal. The applicant, Mr Stennett, sought to challenge a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal. The core of the dispute concerned the proper approach a Court of Criminal Appeal should take when considering an appeal ground alleging that a trial judge erred in finding that there was a case to answer.

The legal issue before the High Court was whether a Court of Criminal Appeal, when faced with an appeal ground that the trial judge wrongly found a case to answer, must confine its review to the evidence presented by the Crown up to the conclusion of its case, or whether it can consider all the evidence adduced at trial when assessing whether the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The applicant argued that the former approach was correct, while the respondent contended for the latter.

The High Court considered the applicant's submission that the Crown's case, which was largely circumstantial, particularly regarding the issue of consent, did not satisfy the test established in *Billick v Starke*. This test requires a reasonable person to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence supports the charge. The applicant highlighted specific facts presented by the Crown, including the complainant's memory loss, her comatose state, the applicant's presence in her room, the smell of semen (though not identified as belonging to the applicant), and semen found on the complainant's underpants which was identified as originating from another person. The applicant argued that this evidence, at the close of the Crown case, was insufficient to establish a case to answer.