Raspor v The Queen

This case concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria. The applicant, Rudi Raspor, had been convicted of assaulting a woman with intent to have carnal knowledge. The Court of Criminal Appeal had dismissed his appeal against conviction. The primary issue before the High Court was the scope of the powers of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria to set aside a jury's verdict.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the Court of Criminal Appeal's power to interfere with a jury's verdict was limited to situations where the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by evidence, or whether it extended to setting aside a verdict that was against the weight of the evidence. This involved considering the distinction between a verdict contrary to evidence and a verdict against the weight of evidence, and whether the court's statutory powers under sections 563 and 564 of the Crimes Act 1957 (Vict.) were so restricted.

The High Court clarified that the powers of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria were not so restricted as to only allow interference where a verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by evidence. The Court affirmed that it was within the powers of the Court of Criminal Appeal to set aside a conviction on the ground that it was against the weight of the evidence. However, in the specific circumstances of this case, the High Court found no sufficient reason to believe that the Court of Criminal Appeal had applied an unduly restricted view of its functions. The evidence concerning identification was considered, including the victim's description of the assailant and her subsequent identification of the applicant, as well as the trial judge's advice to acquit. Despite the trial judge's reservations, the jury had convicted. The High Court concluded that, as only a question of fact was involved and there was no indication of a restrictive application of powers by the Court of Criminal Appeal, special leave to appeal should be refused.