R v Poole [1938] HCA 63

R v Poole [1938] HCA 63

The High Court will not proceed with hearing the application for prohibition while proceedings on appeal from the same conviction are still pending in the Court of Quarter Sessions; to do so risks conflicting decisions and is inconsistent with the role of a final appellate court. It is not sufficient for counsel to...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Respondent: The King; Informant: Alfred Alderson Poole; Applicant: Henry Goya Henry
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Prohibition / Application for Order Nisi; Preliminary Question on Concurrent Appeal in Quarter Sessions
Outcome
application adjourned sine die
Legal Topics
Procedure on Appeals, Prohibition, Jurisdiction of Federal and State Courts, Air Navigation Act, Concurrent Proceedings
Criminal Law Federal Jurisdiction Administrative Law Constitutional Law Procedure on Appeals Prohibition Jurisdiction of Federal and State Courts Air Navigation Act +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The King

Respondent

Alfred Alderson Poole

Informant

Henry Goya Henry

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Prohibition / Application for Order Nisi; Preliminary Question on Concurrent Appeal in Quarter Sessions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court should proceed with a prohibition application while an appeal against the same conviction is pending in the Court of Quarter Sessions
  2. 2 Whether concurrent remedies in State and High Court may be pursued up to the making of a final order in the inferior court

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court will not proceed with hearing the application for prohibition while proceedings on appeal from the same conviction are still pending in the Court of Quarter Sessions; to do so risks conflicting decisions and is inconsistent with the role of a final appellate court. It is not sufficient for counsel to abandon the lower court proceeding in principle, but the lower court must be functus officio; therefore, the matter in the High Court will stand adjourned until the inferior court proceedings are finalised.

Court Disposition

application adjourned sine die

Orders

  • Application adjourned sine die.
  • Either party to be at liberty to apply to a justice of the court to put the appeal in the list.