Director of Public Prosecutions v Moseley

Case

[2013] NTSC 8

1 March 2013


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
DPP v Moseley [2013] NTSC 8 [2013] NTSC 8 1 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v Moseley, the defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery and appealed against the conviction. The defendant sought to have his conviction set aside by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory on the basis that the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal was actuated by fraud. The Court of Criminal Appeal had quashed the defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial, finding that the fresh evidence presented was of sufficient quality that there was a significant possibility that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had they heard it. The Supreme Court was required to determine whether it had the jurisdiction to set aside the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal on the grounds of fraud.

The court held that the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory has concurrent jurisdiction in law and equity and that its equitable jurisdiction includes the power to set aside common law judgments on the grounds of fraud. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the Supreme Court’s equitable jurisdiction did not extend to appeal judgments. The court noted that there were no statutory provisions that abolished, excluded or limited the Supreme Court’s equitable jurisdiction to impeach judgments based on fraud. The court also noted that the potential of fraud to corrupt and bring into disrepute the system of justice administered by the courts has been referred to in strong terms by other courts.

The court held that the plaintiff would bear the onus of proof of the alleged fraud and that a judgment would only be set aside on the ground of fraud after an affirmative finding of the fraud alleged. The required standard of proof was on the balance of probabilities. The court concluded that it had the jurisdiction to set aside the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal if fraud was established.

The court ordered that the matter be remitted to the Registrar of the Supreme Court to be listed for hearing on a date to be fixed by the Registrar.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Criminal Law

  • Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

  • Jurisdiction

  • Fraud

  • Equitable Estoppel

  • Res Judicata

  • Contempt of Court

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Most Recent Citation
Donohue v The King [2024] VSCA 91

Cases Citing This Decision

60

Kinkade v The Queen [2018] NTCCA 4
Kinkade v The Queen [2018] NTCCA 4
Cases Cited

19

Statutory Material Cited

0

Moseley v The Queen [2012] NTCCA 11
Ronald v Harper [1910] HCA 43
Gresham and Gresham (No 3) [2019] FamCA 983