1912-1951 (A'.N.IF.) {No. 16 of 1912—iVo. 31 of 1951), «. 6a (2) (a).
Sy d n e y ,
Section 5a (2) (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Criminal Appeal Act1912-1951 (N.S.W.) is as follows ;—“ 5a (2) (a) The judge or chairman of quarter sessions
Sept. 7.
Dixou C.J., Kitto and
before whom any person is tried and acquitted shall, if so requested by
counsel for the Crown upon or after the conclusion of the trial, reserve for
Taylor j r j .
decision by the Court of Criminal Appeal any question of law arising at or in connection with the trial. No such request shall be made without the written consent of the Attorney-General, (b) The question reserved shall be referred by the judge or chairman to the Court of Criminal Appeal for decision, together with a statement of the circumstances out of which such question arose or such further statement as the Court of Criminal Appeal may require, (c) The Court of Criminal Appeal shall have power to determine the question reserved, (d) The determination by the Court of Criminal Appeal of the question reserved shall not in any way affect or invalidate any verdict or decision given at the trial.”
A decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal given on questions reserved under s. 5a (2) has effect only as a judicial precedent and is not a decree judgment order or sentence within the meaning of s. 73 of the Constitution from which an appeal may be brought to the High Court.
A p p l ic a t io n for special leave to appeal from the Court of Criminal
Appeal of New South Wales.
Abraham Gilbert Saffron was on 15th December 1952 indicted at the Central Criminal Court, Sydney, upon a charge of knowingly giving false testimony at a Royal Commission under the Royal Cowimissions Act 1923-1934 (N.S.W.).
On 18th December 1952 the trial judge, McClemens J., rejected certain essential evidence tendered by the Crown, and following this rejection directed the jury to acquit the accused. The jury then returned a verdict of not guilty.
524
HIGH COURT
[1953.
̂ On 13th March 1953, McClemens J., on the application of the (h'own, and with the consent of the Attorney-General, ordered that Sakkuon pertain (|ii(‘,stions of law which arose out of or in connection with
r.
the chaa'f̂ e upon which the accused had been accpiitted, be reserved
1 UK
QuhhN.
[)y
(jf Criminal Appeal.
On 22nd and 23rd June 1953 the Court…
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 Saffron v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Saffron v The Queen [1953] HCA 51
Case
[1953] HCA 51
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia heard an appeal concerning the jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeal to entertain a question of law reserved by a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant, Saffron, had been convicted of certain offences, and the trial judge reserved a question of law for the determination of the Court of Criminal Appeal.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Court of Criminal Appeal possessed the statutory power to hear and determine a question of law reserved by a judge of the Supreme Court in circumstances where the accused had already been convicted. This involved an interpretation of the relevant provisions of the *Criminal Appeal Act 1912* (NSW).
The High Court reasoned that the *Criminal Appeal Act 1912* (NSW) conferred jurisdiction on the Court of Criminal Appeal to hear reserved questions of law only in specific circumstances, primarily where the accused had been acquitted or where the question arose before verdict. The Court concluded that the Act did not grant the Court of Criminal Appeal the power to entertain a reserved question of law after a conviction had been entered, as this would effectively allow for an appeal against conviction in a manner not contemplated by the statutory framework. The Court emphasised the importance of adhering to the precise wording and legislative intent of the appeal provisions.
The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Court of Criminal Appeal had erred in law by entertaining the reserved question. The orders of the Court of Criminal Appeal were accordingly quashed.