Love v Ackland

The applicant, Love, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal. The dispute concerned the applicant's conviction for fabrication of evidence and perjury, which arose from a previous trial where he was acquitted of creating a false entry in a company's minute book. The central issue revolved around a document referred to as "the brown binder," which was presented as the company's minute book in the first trial.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether fraud vitiates a judgment or conviction, and whether fraud can overcome procedural difficulties preventing an aggrieved applicant from obtaining redress. Alternatively, the applicant argued that if procedural difficulties were insurmountable, the High Court possessed the power under section 37 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) to issue a declaratory judgment, effectively entering a verdict of acquittal. The applicant contended that the Crown's own evidence in the first trial had established that "the brown binder" was not the company's minute book, a fact he argued was fatal to the prosecution's case in the second trial.

The applicant's primary submission was that the Crown's failure to disclose or acknowledge this critical fact from the first trial, coupled with the rejection of his plea of *autrefois acquit* and the subsequent conviction, constituted a miscarriage of justice. He further argued that the trial judge exhibited impatience, anger, and bias, and that his appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal was prejudiced by his counsel abandoning grounds directly related to the factual inconsistency concerning "the brown binder" in favour of grounds focusing on the trial judge's conduct. The applicant asserted that there was a lack of Australian authority directly addressing the effect of fraud on judgments and procedural barriers to redress, making this case suitable for special leave.