Stuart v The Queen [1959] HCA 27
While the prosecution's comments technically infringed the statutory prohibition on prosecutorial comment about accused's failure to give evidence, the exceptional circumstances of the case and the trial judge's lawful and independent direction to the jury negated any significant impact. No sufficient ground was shown for granting special leave to appeal.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- application for special leave to appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- ['admissibility of Confessions' 'criminal Procedure' 'rights of Accused' 'jury Directions' 'prosecutorial Comment']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether applicant's limited English proficiency affected the fairness of the trial and admissibility of confession evidence" 'Whether the procedure used for confession evidence and voir dire was improper' 'Whether denial of request to have statement read for accused constituted miscarriage of justice' "Whether prosecutor's comment on accused's failure to give evidence contravened Evidence Act"]
Ratio Decidendi
While the prosecution's comments technically infringed the statutory prohibition on prosecutorial comment about accused's failure to give evidence, the exceptional circumstances of the case and the trial judge's lawful and independent direction to the jury negated any significant impact. No sufficient ground was shown for granting special leave to appeal.
Court Disposition
application for special leave to appeal refused
Orders
- ['Application for leave to appeal refused.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment