Liberato v The Queen [1985] HCA 66

Liberato v The Queen [1985] HCA 66

Special leave was refused because no error of law or failure to recognise defects in the summing up was shown, no misconception of the principles governing the proviso was alleged, and the applicants were effectively asking the High Court to substitute a different view of the evidence and the summing up for the view taken by the Court of Criminal Appeal; the material before the Court was capable of supporting that Court's conclusion that no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Applications for Special Leave to Appeal Against Convictions for Rape / High Court Special Leave Application After Dismissal of Conviction Appeals by the Court of Criminal Appeal in South Australia
Outcome
Applications for special leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['rape' 'consent' 'reckless Indifference' 'jury Directions' 'onus and Standard of Proof' 'proviso' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'special Leave to Appeal' 'corroboration' 'lies as Consciousness of Guilt']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['rape' 'consent' 'reckless Indifference' 'jury Directions' 'onus and Standard of Proof' 'proviso' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'special Leave to Appeal' 'corroboration' 'lies as Consciousness of Guilt']

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 Against Convictions for Rape / High Court Special Leave Application After Dismissal of Conviction Appeals by the Court of Criminal Appeal in South Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal should have applied the proviso to s. 353(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 S.A. despite defects in the trial judge's summing up." 'Whether the applicants raised an error of law or point of general importance warranting special leave to appeal to the High Court.' 'Whether the High Court should substitute its own view of the evidence and the overall effect of the jury charge for that of the Court of Criminal Appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Special leave was refused because no error of law or failure to recognise defects in the summing up was shown, no misconception of the principles governing the proviso was alleged, and the applicants were effectively asking the High Court to substitute a different view of the evidence and the summing up for the view taken by the Court of Criminal Appeal; the material before the Court was capable of supporting that Court's conclusion that no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred.

Court Disposition

Applications for special leave to appeal refused.

Orders

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