Nicholson v The Queen

Roy William Nicholson applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The respondent was The Queen. The dispute concerned the application of a prospective rule of practice, specifically the absence of a "Carr direction" in the appellant's trial.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge erred by failing to give a "Carr direction" to the jury. This direction relates to the jury's consideration of evidence in circumstances where a prospective rule of practice has been established. The appellant also raised, through reference to a related case, a question concerning the constitutional basis for the High Court to engage in prospective overruling.

The appellant's counsel informed the Court that another application for special leave, *George Savvas*, encompassed similar grounds, including the lack of a "Carr direction" and a challenge to the constitutional authority of the High Court to engage in prospective overruling. The appellant's counsel indicated that they were not seeking an adjournment but wished to bring the existence of the *Savvas* application to the Court's attention, suggesting the possibility of hearing arguments in conjunction. The Court noted the differing pagination in the materials provided and sought clarification on the appellant's specific request.