Ahern v The Queen [1988] HCA 39

Procedural Posture

Application for Special Leave to Appeal and Criminal Appeal Against Conviction for Conspiracy to Defraud the Commonwealth / High Court of Australia; Special Leave Granted and Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge erred by directing the jury that, if satisfied there was prima facie proof of the applicant's participation in the conspiracy from directly admissible evidence, they could then consider acts and declarations of other conspirators to determine the applicant's guilty participation." "What standard of independent evidence is required before acts or declarations of alleged co-conspirators outside an accused's presence may be used to prove the accused's participation in a conspiracy." 'Whether the trial judge or the jury should determine the sufficiency of the independent evidence required for admissibility.' 'Whether any misdirection occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice.']

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was not wrong in principle to reject an approach requiring proof of the applicant's guilt before using co-conspirator acts and declarations, because reasonable independent evidence of participation is sufficient. However, the judge should have determined that admissibility question himself rather than leaving it to the jury. In this case there was reasonable independent evidence, indeed abundant evidence from which the jury could conclude that the applicant knew what was going on, and the impugned direction did not operate to his disadvantage; any misdirection occasioned no substantial miscarriage of justice.

Court Disposition

Application for special leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

Orders

• ['Application for special leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']