The Queensland Court of Appeal held that the convictions of two co-accused for sexual offences against a 15-year-old girl could not stand where highly prejudicial evidence — suggesting a practice of enticing young women with marijuana for sexual intercourse — was disclosed by one accused's counsel and later cross-examined upon by the prosecutor without objection or judicial direction. The Court found that the trial judge should have exercised the discretion to discharge the jury, and that it could not be said the convictions were inevitable absent the prejudicial material. The Court also identified failures by the prosecutor in not calling a relevant witness and by one accused's counsel in failing to cross-examine the complainant or put the defence of consent, contributing to the miscarriage of justice.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.