Trivett v The Queen

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on an application for special leave to appeal. The applicant, Trivett, sought to appeal against a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. The respondent was The Queen. The core of the applicant's argument was that a procedural miscarriage had occurred during his trial, which resulted in significant prejudice to his defence.

The legal issues before the High Court concerned whether the trial judge's summing up to the jury adequately addressed the central issue of the case, and whether a procedural error had diverted the focus from this true issue. Specifically, the applicant contended that the trial had been improperly focused on a "false issue," thereby converting his counsel into an advocate for the prosecution and obscuring the primary question of whether the opals in his possession were the same opals that had been stolen. The applicant argued that the Court of Criminal Appeal had also failed to properly address this fundamental flaw.

The applicant's defence strategy was to raise doubt as to whether the opals shown by him were the same as those stolen. He argued that the thrust of his case was that he had merely been asked to have opals valued and had returned them, and that the Crown's own evidence had inadvertently activated the question of whether these were the stolen opals. The applicant's counsel submitted that the summing up, while acknowledging the importance of the question of recent possession, had not adequately ensured that the jury considered the crucial point of whether the opals handled by the applicant were indeed the stolen ones. The applicant also sought leave to appeal against the severity of his sentence, based on the argument that his possession was temporary and solely for the purpose of valuation.