Killick v The Queen [1981] HCA 63

Killick v The Queen [1981] HCA 63

The majority held that the evidence of Mrs Eyles and Kym Eyles should not have been admitted after the close of the defence case because the Crown ought reasonably to have foreseen that the applicant would rely on the alibi, full details had been given in earlier extradition proceedings, the Crown took no available steps to ascertain whether the applicant would persist in relying on it, and the evidence could have been led in chief. Its admission was unfairly prejudicial and likely decisive, so all four convictions had to be quashed and a new trial ordered.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Application for Extension of Time and Special Leave to Appeal From the Supreme Court of South Australia (court of Criminal Appeal)
Outcome
Application for extension of time granted; special leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; convictions on all four counts set aside; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
['armed Robbery' 'alibi Evidence' 'crown Rebuttal Evidence After Close of Defence Case' 'splitting the Prosecution Case' 'special Leave to Appeal' 'new Trial']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['armed Robbery' 'alibi Evidence' 'crown Rebuttal Evidence After Close of Defence Case' 'splitting the Prosecution Case' 'special Leave to Appeal' 'new 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 / High Court Application for Extension of Time and Special Leave to Appeal From the Supreme Court of South Australia (court of Criminal Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a trial judge may permit the Crown to adduce evidence after the close of the defence case to rebut an alibi sworn to by the accused, where the Crown ought reasonably to have foreseen that the alibi would be raised because it had been put forward in earlier legal proceedings.' 'Whether the admission of the rebuttal evidence caused unfair prejudice and required the convictions on all counts to be set aside.']

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the evidence of Mrs Eyles and Kym Eyles should not have been admitted after the close of the defence case because the Crown ought reasonably to have foreseen that the applicant would rely on the alibi, full details had been given in earlier extradition proceedings, the Crown took no available steps to ascertain whether the applicant would persist in relying on it, and the evidence could have been led in chief. Its admission was unfairly prejudicial and likely decisive, so all four convictions had to be quashed and a new trial ordered.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time granted; special leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; convictions on all four counts set aside; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • ['Application for extension of time in which to seek special leave to appeal granted.' 'Application for special leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'Order of the Supreme Court of South Australia (Court of Criminal Appeal) set aside.' 'In lieu thereof grant leave to appeal, allow the appeal, set aside the...