Bull v The Queen [2000] HCA 24

Bull v The Queen [2000] HCA 24

Evidence of the telephone conversation between the appellant and the complainant was admissible as it went to the complainant's state of mind and purpose for visiting, which was relevant to the issue of consent. It did not constitute evidence relating to the complainant's 'disposition' for the purposes of s 36BA of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA); even if it incidentally touched on sexual disposition, its main probative significance was otherwise. The exclusion of this evidence led to a miscarriage of justice, as the jury could have reasonably reached a different conclusion if it had been admitted. Therefore, the convictions should be quashed and a new trial ordered.

Parties
Appellant: Christopher John Bull; Appellant: Rodney William King; Appellant: James Luis Marotta; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal (criminal) / High Court Appeal From the Supreme Court of Western Australia
Outcome
Appeals allowed. Convictions quashed. New trial ordered for each count.
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Admissibility of Evidence, Exclusion of Evidence Relating to Sexual Disposition/reputation/experiences, Res Gestae, Hearsay Rule
Criminal Law Evidence Sexual Offences Admissibility of Evidence Exclusion of Evidence Relating to Sexual Disposition/reputation/experiences Res Gestae Hearsay Rule

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 7 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher John Bull

Appellant

Rodney William King

Appellant

James Luis Marotta

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (criminal) / High Court Appeal From the Supreme Court of Western Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence relating to the disposition of the complainant in sexual matters is inadmissible under s 36BA of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA)
  2. 2 Whether evidence of the telephone conversation was admissible at common law or excluded by statutory provisions
  3. 3 How to construe the interaction between ss 36B, 36BA, and 36BC of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA)

Ratio Decidendi

Evidence of the telephone conversation between the appellant and the complainant was admissible as it went to the complainant's state of mind and purpose for visiting, which was relevant to the issue of consent. It did not constitute evidence relating to the complainant's 'disposition' for the purposes of s 36BA of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA); even if it incidentally touched on sexual disposition, its main probative significance was otherwise. The exclusion of this evidence led to a miscarriage of justice, as the jury could have reasonably reached a different conclusion if it had been admitted. Therefore, the convictions should be quashed and a new trial ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed. Convictions quashed. New trial ordered for each count.

Orders

  • Order of conviction set aside.
  • Order of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Western Australia made on 19 January 1998 set aside.