High Court of Australia
Copyright Reserved
(N.B. Copyright in this transcript is the property of the Crown. If this transcript is ccpied without the authority of the Attorney-General of the Common- wealth, proceedings for infringement will be taken.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Western Australian Registry No. 5 of 1964
NOTICE OF MOTION
In the matter of - THE JUDICIARY ACT 1903-1960 And in the matter of -
AN APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO_APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMNT OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF
Between- DARRYL RAYMOND BEAMISH Applicant - and -
THE QUEEN Resp-ndent
Coram: BARWICK, C.J.
KITTO, J. MENZIES, J. WINDEYER, J. OWEN, J.
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT PERTH ON FRIDAY, 11H SPETEMBER 1964, AT 11.10 A.M.
PM/H/4a. 1. 11/9/64. Beamish.
WR. #. 2. P. BURT, Q.C., with him WR, C.H.SMITH, (instructed by Boultbee, Godfrey & Virtue) appeared fer the applicant.
WR, R. D. WILSON, Q.C., with him MR. K. H. PARKER, (instructed by the State Crown Soliciter for W.A.) appeared for the Crown.
BARWICK, C.J: Yes, Mr. Burt?
MR. BURT: May it please the Court. This is an application for special leave t» appeal from the judgment of the Ceurt of Criminal Appeal which was delivered on 22nd May 1964, by which the applicant's appeal against his cenvictien on the charge of wilful murder, the conviction being dated 15th August 1961, was dismissed.
The motien for special leave appears at p.l of Vol.1 of the Appeal Bork. The Appeal Bork, as the ecurt can see, is in two volumes.
The case came before the Court of Criminal Appeal on a reference te it by the Minister for Justice under Sectien 21 of the Criminal Code. The matter cane te the court in that way because there had been a petition to the Governcr by the present applicant. The present applicant has already appealed in other preceedings altngether; he has appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal against his cenviction in the first instance, which appeal was net successful,and from that he made an application for special leave t> appeal to this Court, in which he was net successful. But the submission that we make is that that history does not affect the jurisdiction te hear the second appeal ner dees it affect the jurisdiction of this court.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate