Cornelius v R [1936] HCA 25

Cornelius v R [1936] HCA 25

Special leave to appeal was refused because the confession was determined by the trial judge to be voluntary, and it was not established that any threat or promise was really calculated to cause an untrue admission of guilt. The procedure at trial, though departed from normal course, did not occasion any substantial or grave injustice, and the evidence supported the trial judge's conclusions. There was no ground for intervention by the High Court.

Parties
Applicant: Edward Cornelius; Respondent: The King
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal From Conviction and Sentence (appeal From Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria)
Outcome
special leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Evidence, Confession, Admissibility, Voluntariness, Murder, Procedure at Trial
Criminal Law Evidence Confession Admissibility Voluntariness Murder Procedure at Trial

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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Cornelius

Applicant

The King

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal From Conviction and Sentence (appeal From Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the confession tendered in evidence was voluntary
  2. 2 Whether threats or promises calculated to cause an untrue admission of guilt affected the admissibility
  3. 3 Whether the procedure at trial for determining admissibility complied with the Evidence Act 1928 (Vict.), sec. 141

Ratio Decidendi

Special leave to appeal was refused because the confession was determined by the trial judge to be voluntary, and it was not established that any threat or promise was really calculated to cause an untrue admission of guilt. The procedure at trial, though departed from normal course, did not occasion any substantial or grave injustice, and the evidence supported the trial judge's conclusions. There was no ground for intervention by the High Court.

Court Disposition

special leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Special leave to appeal refused