Yates v The Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth)

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia by Franklyn Ernest Yates against the Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth). The core of the dispute revolved around the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal's refusal to hear certain grounds of appeal on their merits, purportedly due to a rule of practice based on *stare decisis*.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal had erred by applying a rule of practice that prevented it from considering the merits of an appeal, and whether this rule was contrary to the proper administration of justice. The applicant argued that this rule, which he contended was peculiar to that court and more severe than in other jurisdictions, created injustice and compounded errors in previous decisions, particularly concerning Commonwealth legislation.

The High Court considered whether it should grant special leave to appeal to review the application of this rule of practice. The applicant's submission was that the rule precluded the Court of Criminal Appeal from independently examining the law and instead compelled it to blindly follow prior decisions, even if those decisions were erroneous. This, it was argued, could lead to the perpetuation of incorrect legal interpretations, as demonstrated by the history of decisions concerning section 233B of the *Customs Act* which were later clarified by the High Court in *He Kaw Teh*. The Court noted that the applicant was essentially seeking to have the High Court consider points that the Court of Criminal Appeal had declined to hear on the merits, which the Chief Justice suggested might fragment the criminal process.