Karpany v The Queen [1986] HCA 49

Karpany v The Queen [1986] HCA 49

Special leave was refused because the trial judge's directions sufficiently warned the jury about the danger of acting on Carter's evidence unless supported by other evidence, the identification evidence and redirection concerning Bromley's clothing did not disclose error or miscarriage, and the sentencing complaint showed no error of principle, violation of settled sentencing principles, or miscarriage of justice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Applications for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court After Dismissal of Appeals by the Court of Criminal Appeal of South Australia
Outcome
Applications for special leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['murder Conviction' 'jury Warning' 'corroboration' 'mental Disorder of Witness' 'visual Identification Evidence' 'photographic Identification' 'non Parole Period' 'special Leave to Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'sentencing' 'appellate Procedure'] ['murder Conviction' 'jury Warning' 'corroboration' 'mental Disorder of Witness' 'visual Identification Evidence' 'photographic Identification' 'non Parole Period' '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

Criminal / Applications for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court After Dismissal of Appeals by the Court of Criminal Appeal of South Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge was required to direct the jury that it would be dangerous to act on Gary Carter's evidence unless it was corroborated, because Carter was schizophrenic." "Whether the warning actually given about Carter's evidence was sufficient." "Whether the trial judge erred in relation to the taxi driver's identification evidence concerning Bromley." "Whether Karpany's non-parole period of twenty-eight years was excessive or involved sentencing error warranting special leave."]

Ratio Decidendi

Special leave was refused because the trial judge's directions sufficiently warned the jury about the danger of acting on Carter's evidence unless supported by other evidence, the identification evidence and redirection concerning Bromley's clothing did not disclose error or miscarriage, and the sentencing complaint showed no error of principle, violation of settled sentencing principles, or miscarriage of justice.

Court Disposition

Applications for special leave to appeal refused.

Orders

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