Mickelberg v The Queen [1989] HCA 35

Mickelberg v The Queen [1989] HCA 35

The High Court lacks power to receive fresh evidence in the exercise of its appellate criminal jurisdiction except perhaps in exceptional circumstances. Peter Mickelberg’s application for special leave to appeal should be granted, his appeal allowed in part, and his case remitted to the Court of Criminal Appeal of Western Australia to determine whether his conviction for conspiracy is inconsistent with his co-accused's acquittal or whether his convictions are unsafe or unsatisfactory. Otherwise, the appeals are dismissed and the application by Raymond Mickelberg for special leave to appeal is refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal (criminal) / High Court Decision on Special Leave Applications and Appeal
Outcome
Application for special leave to appeal by Peter Mickelberg granted and appeal allowed in part; matter remitted to Court of Criminal Appeal of Western Australia to determine certain questions. Application for special leave to appeal by Raymond Mickelberg refused.
Legal Topics
['reception of Fresh Evidence on Appeal' 'unsafe and Unsatisfactory Convictions' 'conspiracy' 'assessment of Evidence on Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'constitutional Law' 'appellate Procedure'] ['reception of Fresh Evidence on Appeal' 'unsafe and Unsatisfactory Convictions' 'conspiracy' 'assessment of Evidence on 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 (criminal) / High Court Decision on Special Leave Applications and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the High Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, has power to receive fresh evidence on an appeal from a Court of Criminal Appeal' "Whether Peter Mickelberg's conviction for conspiracy is inconsistent with the acquittal of Brian Mickelberg on the charge of conspiracy" "Whether Peter Mickelberg's convictions, or any of them, are unsafe or unsatisfactory" 'Whether evidence and processes at trial and on appeal raised doubt about the reliability of key prosecution evidence in relation to identity and involvement']

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court lacks power to receive fresh evidence in the exercise of its appellate criminal jurisdiction except perhaps in exceptional circumstances. Peter Mickelberg’s application for special leave to appeal should be granted, his appeal allowed in part, and his case remitted to the Court of Criminal Appeal of Western Australia to determine whether his conviction for conspiracy is inconsistent with his co-accused's acquittal or whether his convictions are unsafe or unsatisfactory. Otherwise, the appeals are dismissed and the application by Raymond Mickelberg for special leave to appeal is refused.

Court Disposition

Application for special leave to appeal by Peter Mickelberg granted and appeal allowed in part; matter remitted to Court of Criminal Appeal of Western Australia to determine certain questions. Application for special leave to appeal by Raymond Mickelberg refused.

Orders

  • ['Special leave to appeal granted to Peter Mickelberg; appeal allowed in part.' 'Set aside the order of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Western Australia to the extent necessary to enable that Court to hear and determine whether Peter Mickelberg’s conviction for conspiracy is inconsistent with the acquittal of Brian...