Mallard v The Queen [2005] HCA 68

Mallard v The Queen [2005] HCA 68

The High Court held that the Court of Criminal Appeal erred in law by failing to consider the whole of the evidence in determining the reference and by incorrectly limiting its jurisdiction to exclude new or fresh evidence; the non-disclosure and suppression by police/prosecution of material evidence, which bore significantly on the credibility of the prosecution case and the reliability of confessional evidence, resulted in a miscarriage of justice, rendering the jury's verdict unreasonable or unsupportable, such that the appellant's conviction must be quashed. A retrial was ordered, not an acquittal, as the prosecution case had defects but also retained some strength.

Parties
Appellant: Andrew Mark Mallard; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From Decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Evidence, Prosecutorial Duty, Royal Prerogative of Mercy, Miscarriage of Justice, Fresh Evidence, Unreasonable Verdict, Petition for Mercy, Right to Fair Trial
Criminal Law Disclosure of Evidence Prosecutorial Duty Royal Prerogative of Mercy Miscarriage of Justice Fresh Evidence Unreasonable Verdict Petition for Mercy +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Mark Mallard

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From Decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-disclosure of exculpatory evidence by prosecution denied appellant a fair trial or fair chance of acquittal
  2. 2 Scope of jurisdiction of Court of Criminal Appeal on Attorney-General's reference under s 140(1)(a) Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal erred in refusing to consider evidence adduced at trial

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that the Court of Criminal Appeal erred in law by failing to consider the whole of the evidence in determining the reference and by incorrectly limiting its jurisdiction to exclude new or fresh evidence; the non-disclosure and suppression by police/prosecution of material evidence, which bore significantly on the credibility of the prosecution case and the reliability of confessional evidence, resulted in a miscarriage of justice, rendering the jury's verdict unreasonable or unsupportable, such that the appellant's conviction must be quashed. A retrial was ordered, not an acquittal, as the prosecution case had defects but also retained some strength.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Orders of the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia dated 3 December 2003 set aside.