Adami v The Queen [1959] HCA 70

Adami v The Queen [1959] HCA 70

Special leave was refused because, although the treatment of the three additional withdrawal forms at trial was irregular, they might properly have been admitted as connected with the overall transaction involving Cazzaro's bank account and as capable of comparison with proved handwriting; the trial judge's prejudicial observation was unfortunate but not sufficient in all the circumstances to warrant intervention, and recalling Wood was within the judge's discretion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal From an Order of the Supreme Court of South Australia Confirming Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Application for special leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['forgery' 'uttering a Forged Document' 'handwriting Comparison' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'identification Evidence' 'judicial Directions' 'special Leave to Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'appellate Procedure'] ['forgery' 'uttering a Forged Document' 'handwriting Comparison' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'identification Evidence' 'judicial Directions' 'special Leave to 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

Criminal Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal From an Order of the Supreme Court of South Australia Confirming Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether three additional withdrawal forms dated 3rd, 4th and 17th December 1958 were improperly used against the prisoner without a proper ruling or direction on medium of proof and relevance.' "Whether the trial judge's observation about why defence counsel did not ask a detective why he interviewed the prisoner was so prejudicial as to justify intervention." "Whether recalling the witness Wood after the prisoner's case had closed was permissible."]

Ratio Decidendi

Special leave was refused because, although the treatment of the three additional withdrawal forms at trial was irregular, they might properly have been admitted as connected with the overall transaction involving Cazzaro's bank account and as capable of comparison with proved handwriting; the trial judge's prejudicial observation was unfortunate but not sufficient in all the circumstances to warrant intervention, and recalling Wood was within the judge's discretion.

Court Disposition

Application for special leave to appeal refused.

Orders

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