Gallagher v The Queen [1986] HCA 26

Gallagher v The Queen [1986] HCA 26

The majority of the Court found the fresh evidence of Arthur Gallagher unreliable, implausible, and lacking in cogency, and determined there was not a significant possibility that the absence of the evidence at trial resulted in a miscarriage of justice; accordingly, special leave to appeal was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for special leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
['fresh Evidence' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'appeals']
['criminal Law'] ['fresh Evidence' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'appeals']

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 / Application for Special Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether fresh evidence is of sufficient cogency and plausibility to raise a significant possibility that a jury, acting reasonably, would acquit the applicant if it had been before it at the trial.' 'Whether the unavailability of fresh evidence at trial involved a miscarriage of justice warranting the setting aside of the conviction and ordering a new trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

The majority of the Court found the fresh evidence of Arthur Gallagher unreliable, implausible, and lacking in cogency, and determined there was not a significant possibility that the absence of the evidence at trial resulted in a miscarriage of justice; accordingly, special leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for special leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • []