Ratten v The Queen [1974] HCA 35

Ratten v The Queen [1974] HCA 35

A court of criminal appeal is required to undertake its own evaluation of fresh evidence and allow an appeal only if, in its own view, that evidence—whether or not it is technically 'fresh'—establishes innocence or sufficient doubt or, if 'fresh' evidence, is likely to result in a different verdict. The mere possibility that new evidence might have raised a doubt for a reasonable jury is insufficient. Applying these principles, the appeal failed because the fresh evidence was either not truly fresh, not cogent or likely to change the result, and the Full Court correctly rejected the application for new trial or acquittal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal; Merits Considered as on Appeal
Outcome
special leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['appeals' 'fresh Evidence' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'new Trial' 'murder Conviction' 'crimes Act 1958 (vic)']
['criminal Law'] ['appeals' 'fresh Evidence' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'new Trial' 'murder Conviction' 'crimes Act 1958 (vic)']

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 Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal; Merits Considered as on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether fresh evidence not available at trial justifies quashing a conviction or ordering a new trial under s. 568 and s. 584 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)' "The correct approach and legal standard for a court of criminal appeal in considering 'fresh evidence' and alleged miscarriages of justice"]

Ratio Decidendi

A court of criminal appeal is required to undertake its own evaluation of fresh evidence and allow an appeal only if, in its own view, that evidence—whether or not it is technically 'fresh'—establishes innocence or sufficient doubt or, if 'fresh' evidence, is likely to result in a different verdict. The mere possibility that new evidence might have raised a doubt for a reasonable jury is insufficient. Applying these principles, the appeal failed because the fresh evidence was either not truly fresh, not cogent or likely to change the result, and the Full Court correctly rejected the application for new trial or acquittal.

Court Disposition

special leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed

Orders

  • []