King v Kirkpatrick [1916] HCA 79

King v Kirkpatrick [1916] HCA 79

Special leave to appeal from the Supreme Court should be refused as the appeal concerns only costs; the circumstances do not warrant interference under the discretion of the court.

Parties
Defendant: Robert Francis King; Informant: Roger Huntley Kirkpatrick
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 1916
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal / High Court of Australia—application for Special Leave to Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Special leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Statutory Prohibition, Costs Orders, Dismissal of Information, Summary Conviction, Appeal
Criminal Law Procedure Statutory Prohibition Costs Orders Dismissal of Information Summary Conviction 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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Francis King

Defendant

Roger Huntley Kirkpatrick

Informant

Procedural Posture

Application for Special Leave to Appeal / High Court of Australia—application for Special Leave to Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether special leave to appeal should be granted where the appeal relates to costs only after dismissal of information in summary conviction proceedings
  2. 2 Whether a remedy by way of statutory prohibition is available to an informant after dismissal of a criminal charge for formal defect

Ratio Decidendi

Special leave to appeal from the Supreme Court should be refused as the appeal concerns only costs; the circumstances do not warrant interference under the discretion of the court.

Court Disposition

Special leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Application for special leave to appeal from Supreme Court of New South Wales refused.