High Court—Application for special leave to appeal—Appeal by prosecution from interlocutory decision in a criminal trial—National Crime Authority Act 1984 (Cth), ss 13(1), 25, 28, 30; Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 391A, 450A; Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), s 14(3); Constitution, s 73.
Headnote
Hearing
BRISBANE #DATE 21:6:1996, BRISBANE
Matter No M42 of 1996 Counsel for the Applicant : D.F. Jackson QC/W.B. Zichy-Woinarski QC S.J. Odgers (Applicants in each matter)
Solicitor for the Applicant: P Wood, Solicitor to the Director of Public Prosecutions (Victoria)
Counsel for the First : R Richter QC/J D Hammond (for Respondent Mr. Elliott) the first respondent in the first matter.
Solicitors for the First : Barker Gosling Respondent
Counsel for the second : J C Walker QC/J G Judd (for Mr Scanion) Respondent the second respondent in the first matter
Solicitors for the Second : Arnold Bloch Leibler Respondent
Counsel for the Third : R A Finkelstein QC/D O'Doherty (for Respondent Mr. Biggins) the third respondent in the first matter
Solicitors for the Third : Phillips Fox Respondent
Counsel for the Fourth : N J Clelland (for Mr Camm) the Respondent fourth respondent in the the first matter
Solicitors for the Fourth : Coadys Respondent
Matter No M43 of 1996 Counsel for the Applicant : D.F. Jackson QC/W.B. Zichy-Woinarski QC S.J. Odgers (Applicants in each matter)
Solicitor for the Applicant: P Wood, Solicitor to the Director of Public Prosecutions (Victoria)
Counsel for the First : T M Forrest (for Mr Woods) the first Respondent respondent in the second matter
Solicitors for the First : Galbally and O'Bryan Respondent
Counsel for the Second : M T Rush (for Mr Psaltis) the second Respondent respondent in the second matter
Solicitors for the Second : Newbury Bell Respondent
D M J Bennett QC/A Southall (for the National Crime Authority) intervening, instructed by National Crime Authority. Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
Orders
1. Application for special leave dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondents' costs in this Court.
Decision
BRENNAN CJ, GUMMOW AND KIRBY JJ. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal from a ruling by Vincent J in the Supreme Court of Victoria before the impanelling of the jury in a criminal trial. This procedure is provided for by s 391A of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) which reads: "Where an accused person is arraigned on indictment or presentment before the Supreme Court or the County Court the Court before which the arraignment takes place, if the Court thinks fit, may before the impanelling of a jury for the trial hear and determine any question with respect to the trial of the accused person which the Court considers necessary to ensure that the trial will be conducted fairly and expeditiously and the hearing and determination of any such…
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 R v Elliott
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Elliott [1996] HCA 21
Case
[1996] HCA 21
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court considered an application for special leave to appeal by the prosecution against an interlocutory decision made during a criminal trial. The appeal concerned the interpretation and application of provisions within the *National Crime Authority Act 1984* (Cth) and the *Crimes Act 1958* (Vic), as well as the scope of the High Court's appellate jurisdiction under section 73 of the *Constitution*.
The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the Supreme Court of Victoria had erred in its interlocutory ruling regarding the admissibility of certain evidence, and consequently, whether special leave to appeal should be granted to the prosecution to review that decision. This involved determining the proper construction of sections 13(1), 25, 28, and 30 of the *National Crime Authority Act 1984* (Cth) in the context of a Victorian criminal trial, and the interplay of these provisions with sections 391A and 450A of the *Crimes Act 1958* (Vic) and section 14(3) of the *Supreme Court Act 1986* (Vic).
The High Court's reasoning focused on the criteria for granting special leave to appeal, particularly in interlocutory criminal matters. It considered whether the issues raised were of sufficient public importance or involved a question of law that, if decided in favour of the applicant, might affect the outcome of the trial. The Court examined the statutory framework governing the National Crime Authority and its interaction with state criminal procedure, as well as the limitations on appeals from interlocutory decisions under section 73 of the *Constitution*.