Bridge v The Queen [1964] HCA 73

Bridge v The Queen [1964] HCA 73

The Court refused special leave. Barwick C.J., Menzies J. and Owen J. considered that the Chairman's remarks went beyond permissible comment on the weight of the applicants' unsworn statements and infringed s. 407 by drawing attention to their failure to give evidence, but accepted that the Court of Criminal Appeal had found no substantial miscarriage of justice and that there was no basis for this Court to re-examine that conclusion on special leave. McTiernan J. and Windeyer J. were not satisfied that the summing up amounted to a prohibited comment and also considered that special leave should not be granted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Special Leave Application / Application for Special Leave to Appeal From the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales Dismissing Appeals Against Convictions
Outcome
Special leave refused and the applicants' motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['larceny' "accused's Failure to Give Evidence" 'unsworn Statements From the Dock' 'judicial Comment to Jury' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'special Leave to Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['larceny' "accused's Failure to Give Evidence" 'unsworn Statements From the Dock' 'judicial Comment to Jury' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' '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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Special Leave Application / Application for Special Leave to Appeal From the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales Dismissing Appeals Against Convictions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, in summing up to the jury, commented on the applicants' failure to give evidence in breach of s. 407 of the Crimes Act, 1900 N.S.W." 'Whether, even if there was a breach of s. 407, the matter was one in which special leave to appeal should be granted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused special leave. Barwick C.J., Menzies J. and Owen J. considered that the Chairman's remarks went beyond permissible comment on the weight of the applicants' unsworn statements and infringed s. 407 by drawing attention to their failure to give evidence, but accepted that the Court of Criminal Appeal had found no substantial miscarriage of justice and that there was no basis for this Court to re-examine that conclusion on special leave. McTiernan J. and Windeyer J. were not satisfied that the summing up amounted to a prohibited comment and also considered that special leave should not be granted.

Court Disposition

Special leave refused and the applicants' motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Special leave will be refused and the applicants' motion dismissed."]