R v Benz [1989] HCA 64

R v Benz [1989] HCA 64

Special leave should be refused. The Crown did not demonstrate truly exceptional circumstances to warrant granting special leave to appeal. The evidentiary statement in question was inadmissible for the purpose used at trial and the trial was fundamentally flawed by its use and the lack of judicial direction. Even if it was admissible for some limited purpose, a new trial or conviction restoration was not justified. Consequently, the orders of the Court of Criminal Appeal should stand.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal (criminal) / High Court of Australia – Application for Special Leave to Appeal From Decision of Queensland Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Application for special leave to appeal refused with costs.
Legal Topics
['special Leave to Appeal by Crown' 'admissibility of Hearsay Evidence' 'res Gestae Exception' 'identification Evidence' 'quashing of Convictions and Acquittal' 'proper Jury Directions']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['special Leave to Appeal by Crown' 'admissibility of Hearsay Evidence' 'res Gestae Exception' 'identification Evidence' 'quashing of Convictions and Acquittal' 'proper Jury Directions']

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 of Australia – Application for Special Leave to Appeal From Decision of Queensland Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown should be granted special leave to appeal against an order of acquittal or new trial entered by the Court of Criminal Appeal.' "Whether statement by a woman on the bridge ('It's all right, my mother's just feeling sick') was admissible as part of the res gestae or otherwise not hearsay." 'Whether failures in jury direction regarding identification evidence constituted a miscarriage of justice.']

Ratio Decidendi

Special leave should be refused. The Crown did not demonstrate truly exceptional circumstances to warrant granting special leave to appeal. The evidentiary statement in question was inadmissible for the purpose used at trial and the trial was fundamentally flawed by its use and the lack of judicial direction. Even if it was admissible for some limited purpose, a new trial or conviction restoration was not justified. Consequently, the orders of the Court of Criminal Appeal should stand.

Court Disposition

Application for special leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

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