The King v TsalkosCitation:[2025] HCA 49Before:Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJDate:03 Dec 2025Case Number:M64/2025Read more
The High Court held that the trial judge's directions did not invite the jury to use distress evidence as independent support for the complainant's account and that no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred. The directions were consistent with the principles in R v Churchill and the evidence was not...
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Appellant: The King; Respondent: Tsalkos
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 03 December 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Jury Directions, Distress Evidence, Miscarriage of Justice, Admissibility of Evidence
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
The King
Appellant
Tsalkos
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge's directions on distress evidence invited the jury to use it as independent support for the complainant's account
- 2 Whether the directions occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice
- 3 Whether the Court of Appeal's reasoning was contrary to R v Churchill (a pseudonym) (2025) 99 ALJR 719; 422 ALR 265
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that the trial judge's directions did not invite the jury to use distress evidence as independent support for the complainant's account and that no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred. The directions were consistent with the principles in R v Churchill and the evidence was not inadmissible under s 137 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic).
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Conviction upheld
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Judgment date 03 December 2025 Case number M64/2025 Before Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJ Catchwords Criminal practice – Directions to jury – Distress evidence – Where respondent found guilty of offences against two complainants – Where evidence of pre-trial distress when one complainant made complaint – Where trial judge gave directions in relation to evidence of complainant's distress – Whether trial judge's directions invited jury to use distress evidence as independent support for complainant's account – Whether directions occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice – Whether Court of Appeal's reasoning contrary to R v Churchill (a pseudonym) (2025) 99 ALJR 719; 422 ALR 265 – Whether evidence inadmissible under s 137 of Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) – Whether miscarriage of justice because prosecutor described distress evidence as "independent evidence". Words and phrases – "alleged offending", "capable of supporting", "causal connection", "circumstantial evidence", "corroboration", "credit", "direction", "distress evidence", "hearsay rule", "historical evidentiary rules", "independent evidence", "indirect evidence", "pre-trial distress evidence", "probative value", "sexual offence", "substantial and compelling reasons", "substantial miscarriage of justice", "unfair prejudice", "unreliable", "weight". Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), ss 55, 56, 66, 137. Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic), ss 12, 15, 16, 31, 32. Files The King v Tsalkos (M64-2025) [2025] HCA 49.pdf (280.04 KB) The King v Tsalkos (M64-2025) [2025] HCA 49.docx (88.88 KB)