Criminal law – Criminal appeals – The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory against his conviction for murder – The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and entered verdict of acquittal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in quashing the verdict of the jury – Nature of appellate jurisdiction where no common form criminal appeal statute is enacted – Extent of duties and powers given to the Court of Appeal under Pt 2A of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) – Principles governing the exercise of those duties and powers – Whether in this case it would have been unjust or unsafe for the Court of Appeal to allow the verdict to stand.
Criminal law – Criminal appeals – Prosecution appeal to the High Court of Australia against verdict of acquittal entered by intermediate appellate court – Circumstances in which special leave will be granted.
Criminal law – Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reasoning that, because evidence looked at in isolation from other evidence was consistent with innocence, the conviction should be quashed – Whether the Court of Appeal should have considered whether it was open to the jury, on consideration of the whole of the evidence, to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent was guilty.
Words and phrases – "unjust or unsafe", "unsafe or unsatisfactory".
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) – Pt 2A.
Judgment date
Case number
C1/2006
Before
Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Callinan, Crennan JJ
Catchwords