Mickelberg v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 259
Ray Mickelberg and his brothers were convicted of a gold swindle perpetrated against the Perth Mint. On appeal to the High Court, the applicants contended that the prosecution had failed to disclose to the defence certain material which was relevant to the creditworthiness of a key prosecution witness, and that this non-disclosure had occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
1. Whether the prosecution's failure to disclose material relevant to the credit of a key witness constituted a miscarriage of justice warranting a new trial. 2. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to receive fresh evidence on a criminal appeal and, if so, on what principles.
The High Court (by majority) dismissed the appeal, holding that the non-disclosure, while capable of amounting to a miscarriage of justice in appropriate circumstances, had not on the facts established a substantial miscarriage of justice sufficient to warrant setting aside the convictions.
A prosecutor owes a duty to the court and to the accused to disclose material that may be relevant to the defence or to the credit of prosecution witnesses; failure to discharge that duty may constitute a miscarriage of justice, but an appellate court will only intervene where the non-disclosure has occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice.
Mason CJ (in dissent on the result) emphasised that the prosecutorial obligation of disclosure is not merely a matter of professional courtesy but a fundamental requirement of the fair trial guarantee; he considered that any material capable of affecting the credit of a witness whose evidence was central to the Crown case should be disclosed as a matter of course. Several justices also observed that the jurisdiction of the High Court to receive fresh evidence on a criminal appeal is narrow and will be exercised only in exceptional circumstances.
Mickelberg v The Queen is a leading Australian authority on the prosecutorial duty of disclosure in criminal proceedings and is regularly cited for the proposition that the Crown's function is to assist the court in the administration of justice rather than to secure a conviction at all costs.
Mickelberg v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 259Read the full judgment on AustLII. Brief written by caselaw editors using AGLC 4th ed.