Chidley v Smithers [1915] HCA 28

Chidley v Smithers [1915] HCA 28

The Court (Isaacs, Gavan Duffy and Rich JJ., Griffith C.J. dissenting) held that, in accordance with the rule stated in Hather v. The King, special leave to appeal should be rescinded.

Parties
Appellant: William James Chidley; Respondent: Smithers; Respondent: Another (unspecified respondent)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 April 1915
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision on Rescinding Special Leave to Appeal
Outcome
special leave to appeal rescinded
Legal Topics
Appeals, Obscene and Indecent Publications, Special Leave to Appeal
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Appeals Obscene and Indecent Publications 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William James Chidley

Appellant

Smithers

Respondent

Another (unspecified respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Decision on Rescinding Special Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether special leave to appeal should be rescinded in a criminal matter involving conviction and destruction order under the Obscene and Indecent Publications Act 1901 (N.S.W.).

Ratio Decidendi

The Court (Isaacs, Gavan Duffy and Rich JJ., Griffith C.J. dissenting) held that, in accordance with the rule stated in Hather v. The King, special leave to appeal should be rescinded.

Court Disposition

special leave to appeal rescinded

Orders

  • Special leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Ex parte Chidley, 14 S.R. (N.S.W.), 97, rescinded.