Hofer v The QueenCitation:[2021] HCA 36Before:Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Gleeson JJDate:10 Nov 2021Case Number:S37/2021Read more
The court held that although there was a departure from proper trial procedure, the proviso applied because no substantial miscarriage of justice actually occurred.
- Parties
- Appellant: Appellant; Respondent: Prosecutor
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 10 November 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Miscarriage of Justice, Sexual Offences, Appeal, Cross Examination, Rule in Browne V Dunn, Proviso
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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Parties
Appellant
Appellant
Prosecutor
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prosecutor's cross-examination of the appellant regarding defence counsel's non-observance of the rule in Browne v Dunn was impermissible and prejudicial
- 2 Whether such cross-examination resulted in a miscarriage of justice
- 3 Whether the proviso applied because no substantial miscarriage of justice actually occurred
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that although there was a departure from proper trial procedure, the proviso applied because no substantial miscarriage of justice actually occurred.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment