Jenkins v The Queen [2004] HCA 57

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GLEESON CJ,

GUMMOW, HAYNE, CALLINAN AND HEYDON JJ

BRUCE DAVID JENKINS APPELLANT

AND

THE QUEEN RESPONDENT

Jenkins v The Queen

[2004] HCA 57

17 November 2004

M307/2003

ORDER

Appeal dismissed.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria

Representation:

P F Tehan QC with L C Carter for the appellant (instructed by Worcester & Co)

J D McArdle QC with J B Saunders for the respondent (instructed by Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Victoria))

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Jenkins v The Queen

Criminal law – Direction to jury – Accomplice warning – Prosecution witness pleaded guilty to criminal offences related to charges against appellant – Testimony of witness substantially undisputed – Defence did not seek to attack credit of witness – Defence case relied in part on evidence of witness – No warning sought at trial as to reliability of witness – Whether trial judge obliged to warn jury that it would be dangerous to convict on uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice – Whether trial judge obliged to warn jury that evidence was potentially unreliable and must be subjected to careful scrutiny.

1. GLEESON CJ, GUMMOW, HAYNE, CALLINAN AND HEYDON JJ. Following a lengthy trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria before Coldrey J and a jury, the appellant was convicted of five offences of obtaining a financial advantage by deception, and five offences of dishonestly furnishing false information for the purpose of obtaining a loan. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. An appeal to the Court of Appeal of Victoria resulted in the quashing of the convictions for dishonestly furnishing false information, but the convictions for obtaining a financial advantage by deception were upheld[1]. The appellant argues in this Court that those convictions ought also to have been quashed, on the ground that the trial judge failed to give the jury an accomplice warning in relation to the evidence of a witness called by the prosecution. It is common ground that the Court of Appeal dealt with that issue, adversely to the appellant, on the basis of a factual misunderstanding. Nevertheless, the respondent contends that the appeal should be dismissed for the reason that, in the circumstances of the case, no such warning was necessary.