Criminal Law and Procedure (Vict.)—Petition for mercy—Reference of whole case to Full Court—Determination of reference as in case of appeal from conviction—Fresh evidence—Duties of a court of criminal appeal—Evidence likely to remove certainty of guilt—Crimes Act 1958 (Vict.) ss. 568*, 584**. * Section 568 (1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vict.) provides: "The Full Court on any such appeal against conviction shall allow the appeal if it thinks that the verdict of the jury shall be set aside on the ground that it is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence or that the judgment of the court before which the appellant was convicted should be set aside on the ground of a wrong decision of any question of law or that on any ground there was a miscarriage of justice and in any other case shall dismiss the appeal: Provided that the Full Court may, notwithstanding that it is of opinion that the point raised in the appeal might be decided in favour of the appellant, dismiss the appeal if it considers that no substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred." ** Section 584 of the Act provides: "Nothing in this Part shall affect the prerogative of mercy, but the Attorney-General on the consideration of any petition for the exercise of Her Majesty's mercy, having reference to the conviction of a person on indictment or to the sentence (other than sentence of death) passed on a person so convicted, may, if he thinks fit, at any time either—(a) refer the whole case to the Full Court and the case shall then be heard and determined by that Court as in the case of an appeal by a person convicted; or (b) if he desires the assistance of the judges of the Supreme Court on any point arising in the case with a view to the determination of the petition, refer that point to such judges for their opinion thereon . . ."
Decisions
Sept. 25. The following written reasons for judgment were delivered:- BARWICK C.J. The applicant for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria was the petitioner to the Governor in Council of that State seeking a pardon in respect of his conviction for murder in the Supreme Court of Victoria at Bendigo on 20th August 1970. In the alternative, his petition sought a reference of the whole case to the Supreme Court pursuant to the provisions of s. 584 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vict.). (at p513)
2. From this conviction the applicant had earlier appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria without success (1971) VR 87 . Thereafter, he obtained special leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council but his appeal pursuant to that leave was dismissed (1972) AC 378 .…
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 Ratten v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Ratten v The Queen [1974] HCA 35
Case
[1974] HCA 35
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Ratten v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal against a conviction for murder. The appellant, Ms. Ratten, had been found guilty of the murder of her husband, Mr. Ratten, by shooting him with a rifle. The central dispute revolved around the admissibility of evidence relating to the appellant's prior conduct and character, specifically concerning her alleged previous attempts to shoot her husband.
The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether evidence of the appellant's prior alleged attempts to shoot her husband was admissible to prove that the fatal shooting was not accidental or a suicide, but rather an intentional act. This involved determining whether such evidence was relevant to establishing the appellant's intent and rebutting any defence of accident or suicide, and if so, whether its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.
The Court held that the evidence of prior attempts to shoot the deceased was admissible. The reasoning was that this evidence tended to show a disposition on the part of the appellant towards violence against her husband, and that the fatal shooting was not an accident or suicide, but a deliberate act. The Court applied the principle that evidence which is relevant to a material issue in the case, even if it also tends to show a disposition to commit the crime charged, is admissible provided its probative value is not outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The prior acts were so closely connected in time and circumstance to the fatal event as to be capable of throwing light upon the appellant's state of mind and intention at the time of the shooting.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction.