Stevenson v The Queen

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on an application for special leave to appeal by Joseph George Stevenson against his conviction for sexual assault. The respondent was the Queen, represented by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Western Australia). The dispute concerned the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the credibility of witnesses and the use of expert evidence.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in his directions to the jury concerning the credibility of the complainant and the accused, who were the sole witnesses to the alleged events. Specifically, the applicant argued that the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury on the significance and limitations of the evidence provided by Dr. Bredemeyer, a medical expert. The applicant contended that this omission wrongly bolstered the complainant's credibility and prevented the jury from properly assessing the evidence in relation to the elements of the offence.

The applicant's submission was that the evidence of Dr. Bredemeyer, which the prosecution suggested could establish a probability of penetration or digital sexual abuse, lacked an objective basis and therefore could not be used for that purpose. The applicant argued that the trial judge's duty extended beyond merely reciting the submissions of counsel and that his Honour should have explicitly directed the jury that they could not use Dr. Bredemeyer's evidence in the manner suggested by the prosecution. The applicant contended that credibility was fundamental to the case, as the offences relied entirely on the testimony of the complainant and the accused's denials.