Tully v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Tully, against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained during police investigations and the proper application of the law relating to self-defence.

The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of the applicant's prior convictions and whether the jury directions on self-defence were adequate. Specifically, the court had to consider the relevance of the prior convictions to the issue of whether the applicant had acted in self-defence and whether the jury had been properly instructed on the onus of proof in relation to that defence.

The Court held that the admission of the applicant's prior convictions was prejudicial and therefore inadmissible, as their probative value did not outweigh their potential to unfairly prejudice the jury against the applicant. Furthermore, the Court found that the jury directions on self-defence were insufficient, particularly concerning the standard of proof required for the defence to be established. The principles applied included those relating to the admissibility of evidence under the Uniform Evidence Acts and the fundamental principles of criminal law regarding the onus of proof for defences.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction for murder, and ordered a new trial.