Connolly v Meagher [1906] HCA 20

Connolly v Meagher [1906] HCA 20

Special leave to appeal in criminal cases is granted only for questions of great public importance. Here, although there may be technical distinctions between the two offences, the acts in substance constituted one act, and no question of public importance arises justifying special leave.

Parties
Applicant: Connolly; Respondent: Meagher
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 April 1906
Procedural Posture
Special Leave to Appeal (criminal) / Motion for Special Leave to Appeal From the Supreme Court of Queensland
Outcome
Special leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Autrefois Convict, Double Jeopardy, Statutory Interpretation, Licensing Offences
Criminal Law Autrefois Convict Double Jeopardy Statutory Interpretation Licensing Offences

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Connolly

Applicant

Meagher

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave to Appeal (criminal) / Motion for Special Leave to Appeal From the Supreme Court of Queensland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether special leave to appeal should be granted in a criminal case regarding double punishment for the same act under the Queensland Criminal Code section 16
  2. 2 Whether the common law test of autrefois convict and the statutory provision in section 16 of the Queensland Criminal Code are the same

Ratio Decidendi

Special leave to appeal in criminal cases is granted only for questions of great public importance. Here, although there may be technical distinctions between the two offences, the acts in substance constituted one act, and no question of public importance arises justifying special leave.

Court Disposition

Special leave to appeal refused.