Wilde v The Queen [1988] HCA 6

Wilde v The Queen [1988] HCA 6

The majority (Brennan, Dawson, Toohey JJ, with whom the order of the Court accords) held that although there was error in the failure to sever the indictment and in the use of inadmissible similar fact evidence, and in the direction to the jury, these were not fundamental errors depriving the applicant of a fair trial to the extent the proviso could not apply; on the strong evidence, a reasonable jury, properly instructed, would inevitably have convicted. Thus, the appeal was dismissed applying the proviso. Minority judges (Deane, Gaudron JJ) considered the error fundamental and declined to apply the proviso, indicating the necessity for a new trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Criminal Conviction / High Court of Australia; Judgment on Appeal From Conviction After Court of Criminal Appeal NSW Applied Proviso to S. 6(1) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['application of Proviso to Criminal Appeal' 'misjoinder and Severance of Indictments' 'misconduct in Trial Procedure' 'effect of Wrongful Admission of Evidence' 'special Leave to Appeal' 'miscarriage of Justice']
['criminal Law' 'appeals'] ['application of Proviso to Criminal Appeal' 'misjoinder and Severance of Indictments' 'misconduct in Trial Procedure' 'effect of Wrongful Admission of Evidence' 'special Leave to Appeal' 'miscarriage of Justice']

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 and Appeal Against Criminal Conviction / High Court of Australia; Judgment on Appeal From Conviction After Court of Criminal Appeal NSW Applied Proviso to S. 6(1) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal was correct to apply the proviso to s. 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) notwithstanding a serious error of law in the trial' 'Whether improper joinder and wrongful admission of prejudicial evidence amounted to a fundamental miscarriage of justice, precluding application of the proviso' 'Whether, notwithstanding the error, a reasonable jury properly instructed would inevitably have convicted the applicant']

Ratio Decidendi

The majority (Brennan, Dawson, Toohey JJ, with whom the order of the Court accords) held that although there was error in the failure to sever the indictment and in the use of inadmissible similar fact evidence, and in the direction to the jury, these were not fundamental errors depriving the applicant of a fair trial to the extent the proviso could not apply; on the strong evidence, a reasonable jury, properly instructed, would inevitably have convicted. Thus, the appeal was dismissed applying the proviso. Minority judges (Deane, Gaudron JJ) considered the error fundamental and declined to apply the proviso, indicating the necessity for a new trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Application for extension of time in which to apply for special leave to appeal granted.' 'Application for special leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']