Lawless v The Queen [1979] HCA 49

Lawless v The Queen [1979] HCA 49

The majority held that Mrs. Telford's statement did not constitute fresh evidence because it could have been discovered with reasonable diligence by the applicant or his counsel and, even if considered as fresh evidence, it lacked the requisite cogency to create a likelihood of a different verdict at trial. The conduct of the Crown in failing to disclose the statement, while not condoned, did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. No sufficient basis for a new trial or for granting special leave was established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Special Leave Application to the High Court Following Conviction, Unsuccessful Direct Appeal and Petition for Mercy
Outcome
Application for special leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
['special Leave to Appeal' 'fresh Evidence' 'new Trial' 'duties of Prosecution' 'miscarriage of Justice']
['criminal Law'] ['special Leave to Appeal' 'fresh Evidence' 'new Trial' 'duties of Prosecution' '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 / Special Leave Application to the High Court Following Conviction, Unsuccessful Direct Appeal and Petition for Mercy

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the omission of Mrs. Telford’s evidence amounted to fresh evidence justifying a new trial or appeal' "Whether there was a miscarriage of justice due to the prosecution’s failure to disclose Mrs. Telford's statement and Mrs. Joyce's mental illness" 'Whether the conduct of the prosecution in not alerting the defence to material witnesses and evidence constituted a ground for setting aside the conviction']

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that Mrs. Telford's statement did not constitute fresh evidence because it could have been discovered with reasonable diligence by the applicant or his counsel and, even if considered as fresh evidence, it lacked the requisite cogency to create a likelihood of a different verdict at trial. The conduct of the Crown in failing to disclose the statement, while not condoned, did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. No sufficient basis for a new trial or for granting special leave was established.

Court Disposition

Application for special leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • ['Special leave to appeal refused.']