R v Lewis [1988] HCA 24

R v Lewis [1988] HCA 24

The change in membership of the Court of Criminal Appeal did not warrant special leave because the May proceedings were only preliminary directions and caused no demonstrated prejudice. Although the Court of Criminal Appeal committed a serious procedural irregularity by granting leave to add and deciding an unsafe verdict ground without allowing the Crown to be heard, special leave was refused because the discretionary intervention of the High Court was not required for the administration of criminal justice, having regard to the respondent's acquittal, release after serving custody, time at liberty, absence of fault by either party, and the apparent difficulty the Crown would face on the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal From a Decision of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory Sitting as the Court of Criminal Appeal / Special Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for special leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['special Leave to Appeal' 'criminal Appeal' 'unsafe Verdict' 'change in Court Constitution' 'denial of Opportunity to Be Heard' 'judgment of Acquittal']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'appellate Procedure' 'natural Justice'] ['special Leave to Appeal' 'criminal Appeal' 'unsafe Verdict' 'change in Court Constitution' 'denial of Opportunity to Be Heard' 'judgment of Acquittal']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Special Leave to Appeal From a Decision of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory Sitting as the Court of Criminal Appeal / Special Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal erred by changing its membership during the course of the proceedings.' 'Whether the Crown was denied natural justice because the Court of Criminal Appeal decided the appeal on a ground not agitated before it and without giving the Crown an opportunity to be heard.' 'Whether special leave should be granted to set aside a judgment of acquittal and remit the matter for rehearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The change in membership of the Court of Criminal Appeal did not warrant special leave because the May proceedings were only preliminary directions and caused no demonstrated prejudice. Although the Court of Criminal Appeal committed a serious procedural irregularity by granting leave to add and deciding an unsafe verdict ground without allowing the Crown to be heard, special leave was refused because the discretionary intervention of the High Court was not required for the administration of criminal justice, having regard to the respondent's acquittal, release after serving custody, time at liberty, absence of fault by either party, and the apparent difficulty the Crown would face on the...

Court Disposition

Application for special leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Application for special leave to appeal refused.']