Adler v The Queen

The applicant, Adler, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against a decision concerning charges of conspiracy and substantive offences. The core of the dispute involved whether the Crown could proceed with charges for substantive offences after a stay had been granted in relation to a conspiracy charge, where the substantive offences were alleged to be the overt acts of that conspiracy.

The legal issue before the High Court was whether the principle of double jeopardy, or something akin to it, applied to prevent the Crown from preferring charges for substantive offences when a stay had been placed on a related conspiracy charge. The applicant argued that this situation was analogous to cases where courts have expressed disapproval of prosecuting conspiracy charges when substantive offences are available, and that allowing the substantive charges to proceed after a stay on the conspiracy charge would be unfair.

The applicant's counsel contended that the circumstances were similar to the case of *Walton v Gardiner*, where a stay granted in relation to one set of complaints before a medical tribunal did not prevent further action based on similar, though not identical, complaints. The applicant submitted that the High Court should make a pronouncement on this issue, asserting that proceeding with substantive charges after a stay on the conspiracy charge constituted a form of double jeopardy, particularly as the substantive offences involved the same moneys and applications as the conspiracy charge.