Ratten v The Queen [1974] HCA 35

High Court of Australia Barwick C.J. McTiernan, Menzies, Stephen and Jacobs JJ. Ratten v The Queen [1974] HCA 35

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written reasons for judgment were delivered:—

Barwick C.J., McTiernan, Menzies, Stephen and Jacobs JJ.

The Court announced that special leave to appeal would be granted but that the appeal would be dismissed for reasons which would be stated at a future date.

Sept. 25 Barwick C.J.

The applicant for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria was the petitioner to the Governor in Council of that State seeking a pardon in respect of his conviction for murder in the Supreme Court of Victoria at Bendigo on 20th August 1970. In the alternative, his petition sought a reference of the whole case to the Supreme Court pursuant to the provisions of s. 584 of the Crimes Act 1958 Vict..

From this conviction the applicant had earlier appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria without success [17] . Thereafter, he obtained special leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council but his appeal pursuant to that leave was dismissed [18] .

1. [1971] V.R. 87. 2. [1972] A.C. 378.

After considering the petition lodged by the applicant, the Attorney-General of Victoria referred the whole case to the Supreme Court and as well sought the opinion of that Court as to whether, in the event that the Court determined the case against the petitioner, there had been in the opinion of the Court a miscarriage of justice in the conviction of the applicant in the light of all the evidence now available.

Lodged with the petition were a number of affidavits, twelve in all. These were sent to the Supreme Court at the time of the reference of the whole case. Section 584 says that the Supreme Court shall hear the whole case as upon an appeal by the petitioner. The Full Court, having fully considered the matter, rejected the appeal and refused to set aside the conviction and to order a new trial of the indictment [1] . The Full Court saw no occasion to express any separate opinion in response to the question whether there had been a miscarriage of justice. It is against the decision of the case by the Full Court that the applicant now seeks this Court's special leave to appeal.