R v Goia

Case [1988] HCA 20 3 May 1988

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mason C.J., Wilson, Brennan, Deane and Gaudron JJ.

THE QUEEN v. WHITWORTH

(1988) 164 CLR 500

3 May 1988

Practice

Practice—Criminal Law—High Court—Application for special leave to appeal—Application by Crown—Special leave refused—Costs.

Decision

MASON C.J., WILSON, BRENNAN, DEANE AND GAUDRON JJ. In this case the Crown sought special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Queensland which set aside a conviction for murder and ordered a new trial of the respondent. The Court of Criminal Appeal found that there was a misdirection on the meaning and application of s.304A of The Criminal Code (Q.) (diminished responsibility). The Crown's application for special leave failed.

2. In Reg. v. Martin (1984) 58 ALJR 217; 51 ALR 540 the Crown failed in an application for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of South Australia which set aside the conviction of the respondent for manslaughter and ordered a new trial. In that case, the respondent not being legally aided, the Crown was ordered to pay the respondent's costs: 58 ALJR 217, at p 218; (1984) 53 ALR 84.

3. Although there is jurisdiction to award costs against the Crown in a criminal case, it is a longstanding practice not to award costs when a convicted person successfully applies for special leave to appeal or succeeds on appeal. However, an application for special leave to appeal by the Crown is an exceptional proceeding and there is no reason why the jurisdiction should not be exercised in appropriate cases. In this case an order for retrial was made and the result of the particular prosecution will be determined on the retrial. But the Crown sought special leave to appeal in order to canvass the construction of s.304A as a matter of importance to the general administration of the criminal law. In those circumstances it is appropriate to order the Crown to pay the costs.

4. It is ordered accordingly.

Orders

Order that the applicant pay the respondents's costs.

Details

AGLC: R v Goia [1988] HCA 20
Case: [1988] HCA 20
Decision Date: 3 May 1988

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered the appeal of R v Goia, which concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained through a search warrant. The central dispute revolved around whether the evidence found during the search, which led to Goia's conviction, was lawfully obtained.

The High Court was required to determine whether the search warrant, issued under the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth), was valid. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the information provided to the issuing officer established reasonable grounds for believing that the premises to be searched were connected with the commission of an indictable offence. The broader legal issue was the proper application of the statutory requirements for the issuance of search warrants and the consequences of any non-compliance for the admissibility of evidence.

The Court reasoned that the issuing officer must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for the belief that the premises are connected with an indictable offence. This requires more than mere suspicion; it necessitates a factual basis that would lead a reasonable person to form such a belief. The Court found that the information before the issuing officer in this instance did not meet the threshold of reasonable grounds, rendering the warrant invalid. Consequently, the evidence obtained pursuant to the invalid warrant was inadmissible.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

Orders