IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FRENCH CJ, KIEFEL, BELL, GAGELER, KEANE, NETTLE AND GORDON JJ

IMM APPELLANT

AND

THE QUEEN RESPONDENT

IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14 14 April 2016 D12/2015

ORDER

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Set aside the order of the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Northern Territory made on 19 December 2014 and, in its place, order that:

(a) the appeal be allowed;

(b) the appellant's conviction on counts 2, 3 and 4 of the indictment be quashed; and

(c) a new trial be had on counts 2, 3 and 4 of the indictment.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory

Representation

S J Odgers SC with K J Edwards for the appellant (instructed by Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission)

B W Walker SC with M W Nathan SC for the respondent (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (NT))

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

CATCHWORDS

IMM v The Queen

Evidence – Admissibility and relevance – Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act (NT), ss 97(1)(b), 137 – Where appellant charged with indecent dealing with child and sexual intercourse with child – Where tendency evidence given by complainant that appellant ran his hand up complainant's leg – Where evidence tendered of complaints made by complainant concerning appellant – Whether probative value of evidence assessed on assumption that jury would accept evidence – Whether trial judge should have regard to credibility of witness or reliability of evidence in assessing probative value of evidence – Whether evidence from complainant adduced to show accused's sexual interest can have significant probative value.

Words and phrases – "complaint evidence", "credibility", "danger of unfair prejudice", "probative value", "relevance", "reliability", "significant probative value", "tendency evidence".