R v Elliot [1996] HCA 21

R v Elliot [1996] HCA 21

Special leave was refused because, although an important question concerning admissibility of evidence obtained by a purported but invalid exercise of compulsory powers was raised, an appeal from the interlocutory ruling would significantly frustrate the Victorian legislative scheme for expeditious criminal trials and did not warrant departure from the High Court's practice of reluctance to intervene in criminal trials by interlocutory appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal in a Criminal Matter / Special Leave Application From a Preliminary Ruling Before the Impanelling of the Jury
Outcome
Application for special leave dismissed.
Legal Topics
['special Leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Rulings in Criminal Trials' 'national Crime Authority Powers' 'admissibility of Compelled Evidence' 'preliminary Rulings Before Jury Impanelment']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence' 'administrative Law'] ['special Leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Rulings in Criminal Trials' 'national Crime Authority Powers' 'admissibility of Compelled Evidence' 'preliminary Rulings Before Jury Impanelment']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Special Leave to Appeal in a Criminal Matter / Special Leave Application From a Preliminary Ruling Before the Impanelling of the Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether special leave should be granted to appeal from Vincent J's preliminary ruling in the Supreme Court of Victoria before the impanelling of the jury." 'Whether the National Crime Authority exceeded its powers under ss 28 and 25 of the National Crime Authority Act 1984 Cth in obtaining evidence sought to be tendered against the respondents.' "Whether evidence obtained during a s 25 hearing by a purported but invalid exercise of compulsory powers was involuntary or otherwise inadmissible in the respondents' criminal trial." 'Whether an appeal might lie from the interlocutory ruling pursuant to s 73 of the Constitution.']

Ratio Decidendi

Special leave was refused because, although an important question concerning admissibility of evidence obtained by a purported but invalid exercise of compulsory powers was raised, an appeal from the interlocutory ruling would significantly frustrate the Victorian legislative scheme for expeditious criminal trials and did not warrant departure from the High Court's practice of reluctance to intervene in criminal trials by interlocutory appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for special leave dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Application for special leave dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondents' costs in this Court."]