Carusi v The Queen; Cassar v The Queen

These proceedings involved applications for special leave to appeal before the High Court of Australia, brought by Charles Michael Cassar and another applicant, against the respondent, The Queen. The core of the dispute concerned the prosecution of conspiracy charges, particularly where the substantive offence itself involved an agreement.

The legal issues before the Court included whether a rule of practice, which generally prevents a court from reconsidering its own decisions, applied to decisions made on special leave applications. Furthermore, the Court was required to determine the principle that where a substantive offence consists of an agreement to do a particular act, the Crown cannot also charge a conspiracy to do that same act, and whether this principle applied to statutory conspiracy.

The applicants argued that the rule of practice regarding prior decisions did not apply to special leave applications, as these are not traditionally treated as binding precedents but rather as indications of the Court's view. They contended that the substantive offence of conspiracy should not be identical to a substantive offence that is itself an agreement, submitting that this principle applied a fortiori to statutory conspiracy, as legislatures are unlikely to intend such duplication.