Niven v The Queen [1968] HCA 67

Niven v The Queen [1968] HCA 67

Special leave was refused because the Court of Criminal Appeal was not shown to have erred in applying s. 402 (2): on the properly admissible Crown case in chief, a reasonable jury would inevitably have convicted, and the disputed rebuttal evidence could have had no practical effect other than to diminish the applicant's credit.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Special Leave to Appeal / High Court Application for Special Leave After the Court of Criminal Appeal Dismissed an Appeal Against Conviction for Murder
Outcome
Special leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['murder Conviction' 'special Leave to Appeal' 'evidence in Rebuttal' 'prior Inconsistent Statements' 'admissions by Accused' 'proviso for No Substantial Miscarriage of Justice']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Appellate Procedure'] ['murder Conviction' 'special Leave to Appeal' 'evidence in Rebuttal' 'prior Inconsistent Statements' 'admissions by Accused' 'proviso for No Substantial 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

Criminal Application for Special Leave to Appeal / High Court Application for Special Leave After the Court of Criminal Appeal Dismissed an Appeal Against Conviction for Murder

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal erred in concluding that no substantial miscarriage of justice had actually occurred despite evidence tendered by the Crown in reply having been wrongly admitted at that stage.' 'Whether a reasonable jury, properly directed and considering the evidence properly admissible, would without doubt have convicted the applicant.' "The relationship between s. 371 (i) of the Code and s. 98 of the Evidence Act 1910 in relation to Crown evidence called after the close of the accused's case."]

Ratio Decidendi

Special leave was refused because the Court of Criminal Appeal was not shown to have erred in applying s. 402 (2): on the properly admissible Crown case in chief, a reasonable jury would inevitably have convicted, and the disputed rebuttal evidence could have had no practical effect other than to diminish the applicant's credit.

Court Disposition

Special leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Special leave to appeal refused.']