- AGLC
- Rex v Neil [1909] HCA 24
- Case
- [1909] HCA 24
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the applicant's conviction was valid, given that E. S. had testified that she had no intention of procuring a miscarriage. The applicant argued that the wording of the indictment and the relevant form of indictment under section 226 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qd.) required proof of the woman's intention to procure a miscarriage.
The High Court, in refusing special leave to appeal, held that it was not necessary to definitively determine the legal question raised. The Court reasoned that even if the applicant's contention regarding the necessity of proving the woman's intention was correct, the trial judge could have properly directed the jury that the evidence presented strongly indicated such an intention on E. S.'s part. Therefore, the jury's potential finding of such an intention would not have been against the weight of the evidence, and no substantial failure of justice could be suggested. Consequently, special leave to appeal was refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.