Wakeley v The Queen; Bartling v The Queen

Stuart Reginald Wakeley and Anthony David Keith Bartling applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The applicants sought to challenge the exclusion of certain evidence by the trial judge, which they contended may have deprived them of a chance of acquittal. The evidence in question related to the presence of heroin in the bloodstream of Detective Horton, the leader of the drug investigating team, who was found dead in the unit occupied by the investigating officers.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge erred in ruling inadmissible evidence and cross-examination concerning the level of heroin and other substances in Detective Horton's bloodstream. The applicants argued that this evidence, disclosed by the Crown prosecutor and supported by a pathologist's report, was relevant to their defence of the police planting the heroin found in Wakeley's shoe. They contended that evidence of Detective Horton's possible access to heroin at a time proximate to the discovery of the substance in the shoe could have corroborated the planting defence and potentially created reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury.

The applicants submitted that the pathologist's report, indicating that the level of alcohol and opiates, including heroin, was sufficient to cause Detective Horton's death, should have been admitted. They argued that this evidence provided objective corroboration of Detective Horton's potential access to heroin at the relevant time, which was crucial for their defence that the police had planted the evidence. The exclusion of this evidence, they contended, prejudiced their ability to raise a credible defence of planting and to create doubt in the jury's mind regarding the police evidence.