Robinson v The Queen [No 2] [1991] HCA 38

Robinson v The Queen [No 2] [1991] HCA 38

The trial judge's directions would have been understood by the jury as meaning that the appellant's evidence had to be scrutinized more carefully than that of any other witness because he was the accused and had the greatest interest in the outcome. That was a serious misdirection which impaired the fairness of the trial and undermined the presumption of innocence, making the conviction too unsatisfactory to stand despite the absence of objection at trial or a discrete ground of appeal below.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction for Rape / Appeal to the High Court of Australia Pursuant to Grant of Special Leave From an Order of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Queensland
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
['rape Conviction' 'jury Directions' 'credibility of Accused' 'presumption of Innocence' 'misdirection' 'fair Trial']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['rape Conviction' 'jury Directions' 'credibility of Accused' 'presumption of Innocence' 'misdirection' 'fair Trial']

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 Against Conviction for Rape / Appeal to the High Court of Australia Pursuant to Grant of Special Leave From an Order of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Queensland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge erred by directing the jury that, in considering credibility, the greater a witness's interest in the outcome of the case the more carefully the witness's evidence should be scrutinized." "Whether the directions meant that the appellant's evidence had to be scrutinized more carefully than that of any other witness because he was the accused, thereby impairing the fairness of the trial and undermining the presumption of innocence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's directions would have been understood by the jury as meaning that the appellant's evidence had to be scrutinized more carefully than that of any other witness because he was the accused and had the greatest interest in the outcome. That was a serious misdirection which impaired the fairness of the trial and undermined the presumption of innocence, making the conviction too unsatisfactory to stand despite the absence of objection at trial or a discrete ground of appeal below.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Set aside the order of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Queensland and in lieu thereof order that the appeal against conviction to that Court be allowed, that the conviction be quashed and that there be a new trial.']