Jackson v The Queen [1976] HCA 16

Jackson v The Queen [1976] HCA 16

Special leave was refused because the Court of Criminal Appeal's answers disclosed no error warranting intervention: s. 441 of the Criminal Code Q. was not inconsistent with s. 231 of the Income Tax Assessment Act or s. 5 of the Crimes Act, and the jury's answers to the special questions established all elements of the charged offences so the trial judge's procedure in obtaining guilty verdicts was correct.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal in a Criminal Matter / High Court Application From a Decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland on a Case Stated by the Trial Judge
Outcome
Application for special leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['false Entry by Servant With Intent to Defraud' 'income Tax Avoidance' 'section 109 Inconsistency' 'covering the Field' 'special Questions to Jury' 'special Leave to Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'constitutional Law' 'taxation' 'criminal Procedure'] ['false Entry by Servant With Intent to Defraud' 'income Tax Avoidance' 'section 109 Inconsistency' 'covering the Field' 'special Questions to Jury' 'special Leave to Appeal']

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 in a Criminal Matter / High Court Application From a Decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland on a Case Stated by the Trial Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s. 441 of the Criminal Code Q. was invalid or inapplicable by reason of inconsistency with s. 231 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1971 Cth or s. 5 of the Crimes Act 1914-1966 Cth.' 'Whether the trial judge was right to direct the jury that their answers to special questions established all elements of the charged offences.' "Whether the procedure adopted in obtaining the jury's verdict was correct." 'Whether the trial judge should have directed verdicts of not guilty.']

Ratio Decidendi

Special leave was refused because the Court of Criminal Appeal's answers disclosed no error warranting intervention: s. 441 of the Criminal Code Q. was not inconsistent with s. 231 of the Income Tax Assessment Act or s. 5 of the Crimes Act, and the jury's answers to the special questions established all elements of the charged offences so the trial judge's procedure in obtaining guilty verdicts was correct.

Court Disposition

Application for special leave to appeal refused.

Orders

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