Waghorn v The Queen

Frank William Waghorn applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal. The applicant, who had been convicted of murder, argued that a key witness in his trial, a police informer, should have been recognised as a "tainted witness" requiring a specific corroboration warning to the jury.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether police informers should be classified as tainted witnesses, thereby necessitating a corroboration warning to the jury. The applicant contended that there was an inconsistency in how judges treated such witnesses, with some recognising them as tainted and others not. The applicant sought a definitive ruling from the High Court to establish that police informers fall within the class of tainted witnesses.

The applicant's counsel argued that while the High Court's decision in *Pollitt* had touched upon the issue, it had not directly confronted it. They submitted that a standard corroboration warning, typically given for accomplices, was not appropriate for police informers. Instead, they argued for a specific warning tailored to the unique circumstances of police informers, focusing on the reliability of their testimony and the potential for bias or incentive. The applicant acknowledged that a specific corroboration warning had not been sought at trial, but maintained that the issue was of sufficient importance to warrant consideration by the High Court.