Rex v Neil

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Full Court of Queensland. The applicant, J. N., had been convicted in the Supreme Court of Queensland of unlawfully supplying drugs to one E. S. with the knowledge that they were intended to be used by her to procure her own miscarriage. The applicant's sentence was suspended.

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.