James v R [2014] HCA 6: Miscarriage of Justice

The High Court has dismissed by majority the appeal of Samuel James against his conviction in the Victorian Supreme Court. Mr James was convicted in the Supreme Court of intentionally causing serious injury to Khadr Sleiman. It was argued by Mr James before the High Court that there had been a miscarriage of justice.

The Facts

The original trial before the Supreme Court saw the prosecution arguing that Mr James had deliberately struck Mr Sleiman intending to cause him serious injury when he reversed his car into the victim. The prosecution argued in the alternative that Mr James had recklessly caused serious injury.

However, it wasn’t until the jury was deliberating that the prosecution raised the third alternative of Mr James deliberating striking Mr Sleiman with the intention of causing injury, as opposed to serious injury. The trial judge declined this alternative as the prosecution case did not argue this and therefore allowing the alternative might deprive Mr James of an acquittal. 

The High Court Appeal

Mr James argued that the trial judge’s failure to allow for this alternative amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The High Court reasoned that the duty of the trial judge with respect to alternative verdicts was part of the duty to secure a fair trial for the accused. Whether or not omission of the alternative verdict amounted to a miscarriage of justice depended on what justice to the accused required in the circumstances of the case. 

The High Court held that the central issue at the trial was whether the prosecution had excluded the possibility that Mr James had struck Mr Sleiman inadvertently. To have instructed the jury about lesser alternative offences which had not been relied upon by the prosecution or the defence might have blurred that central issue and jeopardised Mr James' chances of acquittal. Consequently, it was found by the majority that there was no miscarriage of justice. 

TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.

James v R [2014] HCA 6 (Published on the High Court Website, 5 March 2014)