Walton v The Queen

The applicant, Walton, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of South Australia. The dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence presented at the applicant's trial.

The legal issues before the High Court were twofold. Firstly, the applicant contended that the Court of Criminal Appeal had misapplied the principles established in *Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor* regarding the admission of statements of intention in criminal prosecutions. Secondly, the applicant argued that the Court of Criminal Appeal had incorrectly stated the rules governing the admissibility of such statements, particularly in distinguishing them from civil litigation. Specifically, the applicant questioned the extent to which *Subramaniam* permitted evidence of a victim's declaration of intention, noting that older English cases like *Wainwright* and *Pook* had held such statements inadmissible, and these were not addressed by the lower court. A further point of contention was the admissibility of statements made by a person speaking on the telephone in the presence of a witness, an area for which the applicant submitted there was no direct authority but which should be deemed inadmissible in the circumstances.

The applicant's submissions focused on the admissibility of evidence categorised by the Chief Justice of the Court of Criminal Appeal. These categories included statements by the deceased indicating her intention to meet the appellant, words spoken by the deceased and another person on the telephone, and statements made by the deceased identifying the caller as "Daddy" or the person she had spoken to on the telephone. The applicant argued that the Court of Criminal Appeal erred in admitting this evidence, particularly in light of the conflicting older authorities and the absence of direct precedent on telephone conversations.