PAYNE V. THE KING 17/1943

PAYNE V. THE KING 17/1943

There were no special circumstances or substantial injustice demonstrated. Although the indictment contained counts that charged more than one crime, the applicant was not prejudiced by this technical defect. The evidence was strong and the trial was fair. Therefore, special leave to appeal should be refused.

Parties
Applicant: George William Payne; Co Accused: Reginald Waters
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 1943
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court After a Decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Tasmania
Outcome
application for special leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Application for Special Leave, Forgery, Duplicity in Indictment, Miscarriage of Justice, Sufficiency of Evidence, Identification Evidence
Criminal Law Application for Special Leave Forgery Duplicity in Indictment Miscarriage of Justice Sufficiency of Evidence Identification Evidence

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George William Payne

Applicant

Reginald Waters

Co Accused

Procedural Posture

Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court After a Decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Tasmania

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are special circumstances warranting the grant of special leave to appeal
  2. 2 Whether duplicity in counts of indictment (multiple crimes in one count) vitiates the conviction
  3. 3 Whether there was any miscarriage of justice due to the alleged procedural defects or evidentiary matters

Ratio Decidendi

There were no special circumstances or substantial injustice demonstrated. Although the indictment contained counts that charged more than one crime, the applicant was not prejudiced by this technical defect. The evidence was strong and the trial was fair. Therefore, special leave to appeal should be refused.

Court Disposition

application for special leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • special leave to appeal refused