Ex parte Spencer [1905] HCA 9
Because the facts necessary to support the second conviction (assisting the keeper in conducting betting business) would not have sufficed to convict on the first charge (being found in a gaming house without lawful excuse), the plea of autrefois convict did not apply and the decision of the Supreme Court was correct.
- Parties
- Applicants: Spencer and Others; Respondent: Complainant
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 04 April 1905
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales
- Outcome
- Application for special leave to appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Plea of Autrefois Convict, Double Jeopardy, Common Gaming House, Games Wagers and Betting Houses Act 1902 (nsw)
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Spencer and Others
Applicants
Complainant
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plea of autrefois convict was available when the applicants were charged and convicted a second time under related but distinct subsections of the same statute based on similar facts.
Ratio Decidendi
Because the facts necessary to support the second conviction (assisting the keeper in conducting betting business) would not have sufficed to convict on the first charge (being found in a gaming house without lawful excuse), the plea of autrefois convict did not apply and the decision of the Supreme Court was correct.
Court Disposition
Application for special leave to appeal refused
Orders
- Leave to appeal refused
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