To understand the nature of the questions which arise it is necessary to give an account of the course of the trial. Evidence was led for the Crown that at about 9 p.m. on the night of 13th June two police officers had gone to a park in Glebe and had there seen two men, one of whom was the applicant, running away from a band-stand. They were chased and caught and the applicant was found to have smears of blood on his hands and on his clothing. In the band-stand the officers found a woman lying on the floor naked and in a semi-conscious condition, her clothes being scattered around her. She was bleeding from the mouth and nose and was badly bruised and, so it was later discovered, had two fractured ribs and a fracture of the skull. There were indications of sexual interference with her but not necessarily pointing to rape. It should be added that although bound over to appear as a witness at the trial she did not attend and the case proceeded without her evidence. When the applicant was asked, after his arrest, what he and his companion had been doing to the woman, he replied that they were "only having a bit of sex". Later he said that they had met the woman during the afternoon in a wine bar and had been drinking together and later gone to the park. Up to this point the evidence was insufficient to justify findings that the applicant had committed the crime with which he was charged. The next step in the Crown case was to tender two confessional statements, one made verbally, the other in writing, made over four months later in curious circumstances. The applicant, so it appeared, had been committed for trial on a charge of indecent assault on the woman Cau and released on bail. While on bail he was arrested at Newcastle in the early hours of 31st October 1960 on a charge of illegally using a motor-car. Shortly after his arrest the applicant informed a police officer, who was questioning him, of the names of two other men who, so he said, had been involved with him in the illegal use of the car. He also told the officer where they could be found. At about 4 a.m. on the same day, these two men were arrested and put into cells at the police station near the one in which the applicant was. Soon after their arrest the applicant told a police officer that he feared that they might resent the fact that he had played the part of an informer. Shortly before 10 a.m. the three men were taken in a police van to the court and brought before a magistrate when the applicant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and the other two pleaded not guilty and were remanded. All three were later taken back to the police station in the police van and returned to their cells. Later in the day, at about 3.30 p.m., a message was received by a Detective-Sergeant Nelson, who was on duty at the police station, that the applicant wished to see him. Nelson went to the cell in which the applicant was and, to the officer's surprise, he at once said "Mr. Nelson, I want to confess to you that I raped a woman named Dorrie Cau in Sydney last Queen's Birthday and I want to write out a statement". The usual warning was given and the applicant wrote out a statement in the following terms: "I Allan Charles Jackson do confess to the rape of Dorrie Cue on the 13th June, 1960. I picked her up at the Orlando Wine Bar Pitt St., Sydney. I had a few wines with her and then with the company of James Keating I went to Annandale to a friend of Keating's and had tea and bottle of beer. Then Keating and I went to Federal Oval with the girl and had a drink and tried to have sexual intercourse with her, she would not let me so along with Keating we forced her and took her clothes off. She struggled and I hit her in the face and then tore her girdle off and Keating helped me hold her down and I raped her. After I finished Keating raped her also. I helped him hold her down while Keating raped her. Keating had nothing to do with hitting her. I was charged with attempted rape on the girl. I was acquitted it has been bothering my conscience and now I want to tell the truth so as I can rest easy." The sergeant said that earlier in the day the applicant had appeared to be very agitated but that when making his statement he was calm. Before evidence of these confessions was led the solicitor appearing for the applicant asked the learned trial judge to hear evidence on the voir dire, saying that he intended to call medical evidence as to the applicant's mental condition at the time when he had made them. His Honour acceded to the request and the jury retired. Detective-Sergeant Nelson then gave evidence to the effect already stated. It was at this stage that the trial began to take a course in which the learned trial judge, counsel for the Crown and the solicitor for the applicant seem to have seen nothing unusual. It might have been expected that the applicant would either have made a statement from the dock or given evidence on the voir dire relating the circumstances surrounding the making of the confessions. This was not done, however, but a Dr. Listwan was called. He gave evidence of his qualifications as a psychiatrist and went on to say that he had seen the applicant several times during the week before the trial. He went on to state what the applicant had told him at these interviews. The story was a strange one, the substance of it being that the other two men who had been arrested had, while in the cells, in the police van and at the court, acted in ways which he described and that this had led him to fear that they were plotting to kill him with the assistance of a man named George. The doctor recounted the various incidents of which, he said, the applicant had told him and which were said to have induced his state of fear. They were of a trivial and some of a ridiculous nature incapable, in the mind of a normal person, of justifying the conclusion to which the applicant said he had come. The doctor went on to state his opinion, based on what he had been told by the applicant, that, at the time of making the confessional statements, the latter was in a "state of mind which could be described as a temporary and acute delusional system with paranoidal content". He had, he said, "certain delusions, unreal ideas which were of a paranoidal nature and was in a state of an acute fear", and was suffering from "illusions and delusions of an acute nature". The evidence on the voir dire then ended and the solicitor for the applicant submitted that the confessions should not be admitted in evidence. The learned trial judge overruled the submission and decided to admit them and no complaint is now made of this. It will be seen from what has been said that, although no evidence or statement from the dock by the applicant had been given that the incidents at Newcastle which had been related to Dr. Listwan had in fact occurred, the arguments on the voir dire and the decision to admit the confessions seem to have proceeded upon the assumption that what the applicant had told the doctor of the happenings at Newcastle and of the effect they had had upon him afforded evidence of the facts so stated. Counsel for the Crown then drew the attention of the learned trial judge to another and different question, that is to say whether, if Dr. Listwan was later called for the defence as a witness before the jury, his evidence would be admissible as bearing upon the weight to be attached to the confessions by the jury. It is obvious that this question could be properly considered and decided only in the light of any evidence given or statement from the dock made by the applicant since any opinion which could be expressed by the doctor should or at least might have been based on the assumption that what he had been told by the applicant was true. At the point which the case had reached, it was a mere matter of speculation whether the applicant would relate to the jury what he had earlier told the doctor and the learned trial judge should not have proceeded, as he did, to rule in advance on the admissibility of the latter's evidence. Nevertheless he did so, after hearing argument during which none of these considerations was mentioned. In giving his reasons for holding that the evidence, if tendered, would be inadmissible, his Honour said: "In some cases it might be proper for the evidence given before the Court on the voir dire on the question whether the evidence should be admitted or not to be repeated again in its entirety as evidence in the trial, not for the purpose of course of inviting the jury to give a ruling on the admissibility of evidence, but for the purpose of assisting them to consider whether, in their opinion, the evidence qualifies the weight of the evidence which has been admitted. This is not a case in which it is suggested there was any particular mental state on any other occasion save that on the afternoon when the confession was made. In my opinion this is not a proper case and I therefore reject the evidence of Dr. Listwan on the trial before the jury." The reason thus given for rejecting the evidence cannot be supported. The defence wished to place before the jury material designed to show that little or no weight should be placed upon the confessions because they were made by a man who was, at the time, mentally abnormal and suffering from acute fear based upon an irrational belief that he was in danger of death and who thought that he might secure his removal from that danger by confessing to the commission of a crime of which he had heard but which he had not committed. The fact that there was no suggestion that on other occasions the applicant's mental condition was abnormal was not to the point. His mental condition when he confessed was the relevant matter and, where a question arises as to the weight to be given by the tribunal of fact to a confession of guilt, no authority is needed for the proposition that all the circumstances surrounding the making of it which tend to show either that it can safely be relied upon or that it would be unwise to do so are admissible. It would for example be clearly permissible to show that, at the time a person confessed to the commission of a crime, he was drunk or insane or had made it as the result of fear or under some other form of pressure and to base upon that evidence an argument that the confession had little or no probative value.