Harriman v The Queen [1989] HCA 50

Harriman v The Queen [1989] HCA 50

A majority of the Court held that evidence of the applicant's prior dealings in heroin with Martin was admissible as circumstantial evidence highly probative on the issue of joint criminal enterprise relating to the offences charged, with its probative value outweighing prejudicial effect; although some letters contained inadmissible material, the remaining admissible evidence made conviction inevitable, and no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred. Some Justices accepted parts of the disputed evidence should have been excluded, but the overall strength of the admissible case meant the appeal should be dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court of Australia From the Court of Criminal Appeal of Western Australia; Granted, But Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Special leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed (by majority). A new trial ordered by Gaudron J. in dissent.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'similar Fact Evidence' 'propensity Evidence' 'judicial Discretion' 'criminal Procedure']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'similar Fact Evidence' 'propensity Evidence' 'judicial Discretion' 'criminal Procedure']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court of Australia From the Court of Criminal Appeal of Western Australia; Granted, But Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence of prior use and sale of heroin by the applicant was admissible in a trial for being knowingly concerned in the importation of heroin' 'Whether such evidence was improperly admitted and if so, whether it resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice necessitating a new trial' 'Whether letters written by the applicant, containing references to prior offences or associations, should have been wholly or partly excluded']

Ratio Decidendi

A majority of the Court held that evidence of the applicant's prior dealings in heroin with Martin was admissible as circumstantial evidence highly probative on the issue of joint criminal enterprise relating to the offences charged, with its probative value outweighing prejudicial effect; although some letters contained inadmissible material, the remaining admissible evidence made conviction inevitable, and no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred. Some Justices accepted parts of the disputed evidence should have been excluded, but the overall strength of the admissible case meant the appeal should be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Special leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed (by majority). A new trial ordered by Gaudron J. in dissent.

Orders

  • ['Special leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']