The High Court held 4-3 that framing a tendency in terms replicating charged conduct and relying exclusively on evidence of charged acts from a single complainant is not inconsistent with the nature of tendency evidence and does not invite impermissible circular reasoning. A tendency direction inviting findings on charged conduct to a lesser standard does not of itself constitute a miscarriage of justice; the test is whether the summing up as a whole gave rise to a real risk of undermining the jury's understanding of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The High Court unanimously held that a conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office may be described by reference to cumulative characteristics of contemplated acts, rejecting the contention that the prosecution must allege agreement to do particular specified acts amounting to the predicate offence.
Charisiou v. The King
Whether a sentencing judge must find "exceptional circumstances" before considering family hardship as a relevant factor in sentencing under Victorian law.
To be heard · Melbourne · M41/2026
Connor Yeates (a pseudonym) v. The King
Whether Bitcoin constitutes property capable of being stolen under the Crimes Act 1958, or whether it is merely information lacking the legal characteristics of property.
To be heard · Melbourne · M36/2026 · on appeal from [2025] VSCA 288
Edmunds v. The King
Whether a trial judge was required to direct a jury on self-defence when the evidence did not suggest a reasonable possibility that the person who carried out the murder believed it was necessary to use lethal force to protect themselves from death or serious injury.
To be heard · Melbourne · M52/2026
The King v. Bechaud
The High Court will consider whether a trial judge's failure to re-administer a separation oath to jurors immediately before they begin deliberations, rather than only at the start of the trial, constitutes a fundamental irregularity that invalidates a rape conviction under Victorian law.
To be heard · Melbourne · M40/2026 · on appeal from [2025] VSCA 306
Farrugia v. The King
Whether a conflict of interest arises when the same counsel represents two offenders in sentencing proceedings and makes submissions on parity that favour one offender but disadvantage the other, potentially causing a miscarriage of justice through lost opportunity for representations.
Judgment reserved · Sydney · on appeal from [2025] NSWCCA 49
GBU v. The King
Whether a Mental Health Court's finding of diminished responsibility due to drug-induced psychosis must be considered when sentencing someone for manslaughter in the Supreme Court of Queensland.
Judgment reserved · Brisbane · on appeal from [2025] QCA 196