Baker v The Queen [2012] HCA 27

Baker v The Queen [2012] HCA 27

The High Court held that there is no common law exception permitting the admission of a co-accused's out-of-court statements as evidence in favour of another accused. LM's statements were not admissible in the appellant's trial, as they did not unambiguously exculpate the appellant and were not reliable for that purpose. The exclusion of LM's statements did not occasion a miscarriage of justice, and the trial judge's direction to the jury was correct.

Parties
Appellant: Khalid Baker; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From the Supreme Court of Victoria
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Hearsay, Admissions, Joint Trials, Confessional Statements, Common Law Exceptions to Hearsay
Criminal Law Evidence Hearsay Admissions Joint Trials Confessional Statements Common Law Exceptions to Hearsay

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khalid Baker

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From the Supreme Court of Victoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether out-of-court confessional statements by a co-accused were admissible in exculpation of the appellant as an exception to the hearsay rule.
  2. 2 Whether the exclusion of the co-accused's statements occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
  3. 3 Whether the common law should be modified to create an exception to the hearsay rule in these circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that there is no common law exception permitting the admission of a co-accused's out-of-court statements as evidence in favour of another accused. LM's statements were not admissible in the appellant's trial, as they did not unambiguously exculpate the appellant and were not reliable for that purpose. The exclusion of LM's statements did not occasion a miscarriage of justice, and the trial judge's direction to the jury was correct.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.