Parsons v The Queen [1957] HCA 75

Parsons v The Queen [1957] HCA 75

At the time of the applicant's trial, murder was punishable by penal servitude for life and not by death because of the Crimes (Amendment) Act 1955. Section 55(2) of the Jury Act 1912 used the capital nature of the offence as the test for twenty peremptory challenges, not the historical identity of offences formerly punishable by death. The applicant was therefore entitled only to eight peremptory challenges, and the other grounds concerning provocation directions and fresh evidence did not justify special leave.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal From an Order of the Supreme Court Sitting as a Court of Criminal Appeal Dismissing an Appeal From a Conviction of Murder / High Court Special Leave Application
Outcome
Application for special leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['peremptory Challenges' 'jury Empanelment' 'capital Offences' 'murder' 'provocation' 'fresh Evidence' 'special Leave to Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['peremptory Challenges' 'jury Empanelment' 'capital Offences' 'murder' 'provocation' 'fresh Evidence' 'special Leave to Appeal']

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 From an Order of the Supreme Court Sitting as a Court of Criminal Appeal Dismissing an Appeal From a Conviction of Murder / High Court Special Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether, after the Crimes (Amendment) Act 1955 substituted penal servitude for life for the death penalty for murder, a person indicted for murder was entitled under s. 55(2) of the Jury Act 1912 to twenty peremptory challenges or only eight.' "Whether the trial judge's direction to the jury concerning provocation warranted special leave to appeal." 'Whether fresh evidence bearing upon provocation warranted special leave to appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

At the time of the applicant's trial, murder was punishable by penal servitude for life and not by death because of the Crimes (Amendment) Act 1955. Section 55(2) of the Jury Act 1912 used the capital nature of the offence as the test for twenty peremptory challenges, not the historical identity of offences formerly punishable by death. The applicant was therefore entitled only to eight peremptory challenges, and the other grounds concerning provocation directions and fresh evidence did not justify special leave.

Court Disposition

Application for special leave to appeal refused.

Orders

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