The Queen v Sarah Jane Thomson (No 1)

The Queen brought an appeal against Sarah Jane Thomson, who was charged with a crime, to the court. The matter at hand involved the admissibility of certain evidence that the Crown sought to present, specifically evidence related to attempts by the Crown to speak to a witness. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The Crown argued that the evidence of the accused’s husband declining to be interviewed by police was relevant and should be admitted. However, Thomson contended that the probative value of this evidence was outweighed by the potential for unfair prejudice to her.

The court was required to decide whether the probative value of the evidence of the husband's refusal to be interviewed outweighed the prejudicial effect that it may have on the accused. The court needed to balance the interests of justice, ensuring that the evidence presented was relevant and reliable, while also considering the potential impact on the fairness of the trial. The court had to determine whether admitting this evidence would unduly prejudice the accused, thereby affecting her right to a fair trial.

The court found that the probative value of the evidence was indeed outweighed by the unfair prejudice it may cause to the accused. The court held that the evidence of the husband declining to be interviewed by police should not be admitted, as it could lead to the jury drawing an adverse inference about the accused’s guilt. The court granted the parties leave to make submissions on the appropriate direction to be given to the jury regarding the absence of the husband as a witness. The court acknowledged the importance of ensuring that the accused received a fair trial, and that the evidence presented did not unfairly prejudice her.

The court made an order excluding the evidence of the husband declining to be interviewed by police. The court also granted the parties leave to make submissions on the direction to be given to the jury about the fact that the accused’s husband is not called to give evidence. The court's decision aimed to balance the interests of justice and ensure that the accused received a fair trial. The outcome of the appeal was that the evidence in question was excluded, and the parties were allowed to make further submissions regarding the direction to be given to the jury.