R v Wilkes [1948] HCA 22

R v Wilkes [1948] HCA 22

Special leave was refused in the exercise of discretion because the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision to quash the conviction on the third count and refuse a new trial was a proper discretionary response to an unsatisfactory verdict, and the challenged statement about the effect of the acquittals was not a point of law necessarily implicit in the case warranting an appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal From a Supreme Court Judgment as a Court of Criminal Appeal Quashing a Conviction and Refusing a New Trial
Outcome
Application for special leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['special Leave to Appeal From Acquittal' 'inconsistent or Unsatisfactory Verdicts' 'conspiracy to Defeat the Course of Justice' 'manslaughter' 'conspiracy to Procure Miscarriage' 'issue Estoppel in Criminal Proceedings' 'accomplice Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'appellate Procedure' 'evidence'] ['special Leave to Appeal From Acquittal' 'inconsistent or Unsatisfactory Verdicts' 'conspiracy to Defeat the Course of Justice' 'manslaughter' 'conspiracy to Procure Miscarriage' 'issue Estoppel in Criminal Proceedings' 'accomplice Evidence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal From a Supreme Court Judgment as a Court of Criminal Appeal Quashing a Conviction and Refusing a New Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether special leave should be granted to appeal from a judgment of acquittal by the Supreme Court as a court of criminal appeal.' "Whether the jury's conviction on the third count of conspiracy to defeat the course of justice was unsatisfactory in light of acquittals on manslaughter and conspiracy to procure miscarriage." 'Whether a new trial should be ordered after the conviction on the third count was quashed.' "Whether the Full Court's statement about what had been conclusively established by the acquittals raised an issue of law warranting special leave."]

Ratio Decidendi

Special leave was refused in the exercise of discretion because the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision to quash the conviction on the third count and refuse a new trial was a proper discretionary response to an unsatisfactory verdict, and the challenged statement about the effect of the acquittals was not a point of law necessarily implicit in the case warranting an appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for special leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Application refused.']