ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Special leave to appeal-Habeas Corpus-Mandamus-Discretion of Governor in
Council of State - Prisoner under sentence ofStateCourt-Remission of - sentence -Crimes Act 1890 (Vict.) (No. 1079), sec. 540.* MELBOURNE,
Where a person is detained in a State gaol under a sentence of a State Court, the High Court has no jurisdiction to order him to be allowed to come before the High Court in order that he may personally apply for leave to appeal from a judgment of a Court of that State.
Mandamus will not lie to the Governor in Council of a State, and no Court has jurisdiction to review his discretion in the exercise of the prerogative of
Where a writ of habeas corpus, which had been obtained by a prisoner alleging that he was entitled to his liberty under regulations made pursuant to sec. 540 of the Crimes Act 1890 (Vict.), had been discharged by the Supreme Court,
Special leave to appeal was refused.
APPLICATION for special leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria.
prisonment or of imprisonment or de- far as is material, is as follows :-
tention with hard labour as an incen. tive to or reward for good conduct whilst the offender shall be imprisoned and regulations as he shall think fit for
or detained under such sentence, and the mitigation or remission conditional
to mitigate or remit the term of pun- or otherwise of any sentence of im-
On 8th September 1904 Louis Horwitz was at the Supreme Court criminal sittings at Melbourne convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for five years with hard labour, and on 4th October 1905 he was again convicted and sentenced to twelve months imprisonment, cumulative upon the term of the first sentence, and thereafter he was serving those sentences in the Geelong gaol.
A writ of habeas corpus was on 18th March 1908 obtained on behalf of Horwitz and directed to Edward Charles Connor, Inspector-General of Penal Establishments of Victoria, by which it was alleged that Horwitz was entitled to his release from gaol by virtue of sec. 540 of the Crimes Act 1890. Pursuant to that section certain regulations had been made by the Governor in Council for the remission of sentences, under which a prisoner, on earning a certain number of marks proportionate to the length of his sentence, might have a portion of his sentence remitted. On the return of the writ on 3rd April 1908 the Full Court held that, upon a proper interpretation of the regulations, Horwitz was not entitled to be released and discharged the writ.
Bryant, now applied that Horwitz should be allowed to per- sonally make an application for special leave to appeal from the judgment discharging the writ of habeas corpus.
[GRIFFITH C.J. - What jurisdiction is there under the Con- stitution for this…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Horwitz v Connor
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Horwitz v Connor [1908] HCA 33
Case
[1908] HCA 33
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case involved an application for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant, Louis Horwitz, was a prisoner serving sentences in Geelong gaol. He had obtained a writ of habeas corpus against Edward Charles Connor, the Inspector-General of Penal Establishments of Victoria, alleging his entitlement to release under regulations made pursuant to section 540 of the *Crimes Act 1890* (Vict.). These regulations provided for the remission of sentences based on good conduct. The Full Court of the Supreme Court had discharged the writ, finding that Horwitz was not entitled to release under the proper interpretation of the regulations.
The legal issues before the High Court were whether it had jurisdiction to order a prisoner under sentence of a State Court to be brought before it to personally apply for leave to appeal, and whether special leave to appeal from the Supreme Court's discharge of the habeas corpus writ should be granted. Relatedly, the Court considered whether a writ of mandamus could lie against the Governor in Council of a State regarding the remission of sentences.
The High Court refused the application for special leave to appeal. The Chief Justice, Griffith CJ, explained that the power granted to the Governor in Council under section 540 of the *Crimes Act 1890* to make regulations and to mitigate or remit sentences was discretionary. He stated that a mandamus would not lie to the Governor in Council, and no court had jurisdiction to review the discretion of the Governor in Council in exercising the prerogative of mercy. The Court also held that it lacked jurisdiction to order a prisoner under sentence of a State Court to be brought before it for the purpose of applying for leave to appeal.