Mattson v R [1919] HCA 43

Mattson v R [1919] HCA 43

A new trial should not be granted on the basis that evidence of hostility, which counsel purposely did not call due to concerns about implication of motive, could have supported self-defence; special leave to appeal was refused as there was no reason to differ from the Supreme Court’s judgment.

Parties
Appellant: Charles Mattson; Respondent: The King
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 August 1919
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal
Outcome
special leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
New Trial, Murder, Manslaughter, Self Defence, Motive
Criminal Law New Trial Murder Manslaughter Self Defence Motive

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Mattson

Appellant

The King

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should a new trial be granted to allow the accused to call evidence showing the deceased's hostility, purportedly to prove self-defence?
  2. 2 Did counsel's choice to refrain from calling evidence constitute grounds for a new trial?

Ratio Decidendi

A new trial should not be granted on the basis that evidence of hostility, which counsel purposely did not call due to concerns about implication of motive, could have supported self-defence; special leave to appeal was refused as there was no reason to differ from the Supreme Court’s judgment.

Court Disposition

special leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Special leave to appeal refused.