Criminal practice – Appeal – Recorded evidence – Where principal evidence implicating respondent was alleged admissions in intercepted telephone calls and police interviews – Where recordings of principal evidence played to jury and tendered as exhibits – Where respondent appealed conviction on ground that verdict unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence – Where majority of Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales ("CCA") held reasonable doubt as to respondent's guilt – Where majority of CCA did not view or listen to recordings of principal evidence – Whether CCA erred in concluding reasonable doubt not capable of being explained away by jury's natural advantages in having listened to principal evidence without listening to recordings – Whether in failing to listen to or view principal evidence CCA failed to discharge appellate function described in M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487.
Words and phrases – "admissions", "advantage in seeing and hearing the evidence", "ascertaining the effect of the evidence visually or by sound", "beyond reasonable doubt", "circumstantial case", "consciousness of guilt reasoning", "credibility and reliability", "demeanour", "electronic exhibits", "extended joint criminal enterprise", "function of the appellate court", "generalised inference", "indispensable intermediate fact", "intercepted telephone calls", "joint criminal enterprise", "natural advantages of the jury", "procedural fairness", "real forensic purpose", "recorded evidence", "recorded witness testimony", "relevant or significant advantage", "tone of voice", "transcript", "unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence", "video recorded evidence".
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) – s 6.
Judgment date
Case number
S38/2024
Before
Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJ
Catchwords
Files
The King v ZT (S38-2024) [2025] HCA 9.docx
(114.27 KB)
The King v ZT (S38-2024) [2025] HCA 9.pdf
(332.3 KB)