Cox v R (No 2)

The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia by Cox, the appellant, against the Crown, the respondent. The matter related to a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Queensland, which had upheld a ground of appeal that the jury verdict was unreasonable and unable to be supported. The appellant sought a certificate under the Criminal Law (Forensible Findings) Act 1985 (Qld), which would allow for an order for costs against the Crown. The Crown opposed the application, arguing that the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal did not establish a ground that would justify the grant of a certificate.

The legal issue before the court was whether the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision was sufficient to justify the grant of a certificate under the Act. The court had to consider whether the evidence of the principal Crown witness was "very substantially lacking in credit," and whether the institution of the proceedings was unreasonable with the wisdom of hindsight. The court also needed to determine the applicable test for deciding whether a certificate should be granted, and whether the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal established a ground that would justify the grant of a certificate.

The court held that the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal was sufficient to justify the grant of a certificate. The court found that the evidence of the principal Crown witness was "very substantially lacking in credit," and that the institution of the proceedings was unreasonable with the wisdom of hindsight. The court held that the applicable test for deciding whether a certificate should be granted was whether there was a ground that would justify the grant of a certificate, and whether the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal established such a ground. The court held that the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal did establish such a ground, and that the appellant was entitled to a certificate under the Act.

The court also held that there was no question of principle involved in the case, and that the certificate should be granted. The court noted that the Court of Criminal Appeal had found that the jury verdict was unreasonable and unable to be supported, and that the evidence of the principal Crown witness was "very substantially lacking in credit." The court held that these findings were sufficient to establish a ground that would justify the grant of a certificate, and that the appellant was entitled to an order for costs against the Crown.