R v Wilkes

The case involved an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia following a decision by the Court of Criminal Appeal of South Australia. The original information laid by the Attorney-General of South Australia charged H.J. Wilkes and D.M. Wilkes with three offences: manslaughter of Bessie Boulton, conspiracy with Boulton and D.R. Prior to procure an unlawful miscarriage of Boulton, and conspiracy with Prior to defeat the course of public justice. The jury acquitted both accused on the first two counts but convicted them on the third count. The Court of Criminal Appeal subsequently quashed the conviction on the third count, citing inconsistency between the verdicts and ordering that judgments of acquittal be entered.

The legal issues before the High Court concerned whether special leave to appeal should be granted to the Crown from the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision to quash the conviction and enter acquittals. Specifically, the court considered the nature of issue estoppel in criminal trials, the discretion of the Court of Criminal Appeal to refuse a new trial, and the exceptional power of the High Court to grant special leave to appeal from judgments of acquittal. The Crown argued that the Court of Criminal Appeal had erred in introducing a concept of "criminal estoppel" and that the jury's verdicts were not necessarily inconsistent.

The majority of the High Court, comprising Rich, Dixon, and McTiernan JJ., refused special leave to appeal. Dixon J. emphasised that while the High Court has jurisdiction to grant special leave from judgments of acquittal, this is an exceptional power to be exercised cautiously, as it is not in accordance with general English legal principles to allow appeals from acquittals. He noted that the Court of Criminal Appeal had exercised its discretion to quash the conviction due to the unsatisfactory nature of the verdict in light of the acquittals on the other counts, and that this was a proper exercise of that court's power. While Dixon J. discussed the concept of issue estoppel in criminal trials, he concluded that it was not necessary to determine the precise legal question in this application, as the application was one of discretion. Latham C.J. dissented, expressing doubt about the Court of Criminal Appeal's reasoning regarding the inconsistency of the verdicts and the implications for future proceedings, and would have granted special leave to clarify these points.

The application for special leave to appeal was refused.