Thompson v The Queen [1968] HCA 21

Thompson v The Queen [1968] HCA 21

The convictions could not stand because the trial admitted strongly prejudicial evidence that did no more than show the prisoners' criminal propensity and skill as safebreakers. Evidence and detailed explanation of tools that could not have been used to commit the charged offences, and Marr's evidence that Thompson had described other safebreaking methods, did not connect the prisoners with the charged crimes and was inadmissible propensity evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal / Appeals From Convictions and Sentences in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory
Outcome
Appeals allowed; verdicts set aside; convictions and sentences quashed; new trial directed.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'criminal Propensity Evidence' 'safebreaking Tools' 'identification Evidence' 'new Trial']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'criminal Propensity Evidence' 'safebreaking Tools' 'identification Evidence' '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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal / Appeals From Convictions and Sentences in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of safebreaking tools and expert evidence about their use where some tools could not have been used in the crimes charged.' 'Whether the trial judge erred in admitting and relying on evidence from Marr that Thompson had described methods of opening safes on other occasions.' 'Whether the wrongly admitted evidence was strongly prejudicial and required the convictions and sentences to be quashed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions could not stand because the trial admitted strongly prejudicial evidence that did no more than show the prisoners' criminal propensity and skill as safebreakers. Evidence and detailed explanation of tools that could not have been used to commit the charged offences, and Marr's evidence that Thompson had described other safebreaking methods, did not connect the prisoners with the charged crimes and was inadmissible propensity evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; verdicts set aside; convictions and sentences quashed; new trial directed.

Orders

  • ['Appeals allowed.' 'Verdicts set aside: convictions and sentences quashed.' 'Direct new trial of appellants before the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia at such time and place as may be appointed.']