Craig v R [1933] HCA 41

> 4 ry, 7 v, finsleny R j So' BCES Ralphs' 27 fetes Fetnve Cisse il ACemR 212 AG 10 UPAYRT SASK T IPE ower ect

) C.L.R.J OF AUSTRALIA.

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)

AIG . 4 ' 7. . a ss m . APPLICANT ;

Me we... RESPONDENT.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF NEW SOUTH WALES.

Court—Appellate jurisdiction—Special leave to appeal—Grounds for granting or refusing—In criminal cases—Exceptional and special circumstances—Sub- stantial and grave injustice.

tainty of guilt—Consideration of probative force and nature of evidence adduced | at trial—Unreliability of proposed new witness.

al Law and Procedure—Evidence—Onus of proof—Identification—Case

depending on identifying witnesses only.

_ The High Court will not grant special leave to appeal to a prisoner convicted

| upon indictment unless (per Rich and Dizon JJ.) the ease presents some special "features, (per Starke J.) it is shown that exceptional and special circumstances

exist, and that substantial and grave injustice has been done, (per Evatt and

McTiernan JJ.) it presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review __ of the decision of the State Supreme Court. _

Per Rich and Dion JJ.: In an application to have a conviction set aside upon the ground of fresh evidence, it cannot be said that a miscarriage of justice 'has occurred unless the fresh evidence has cogency and plausibility as well as y. The fresh evidence must be of such a character that, if considered n combination with the evidence already given upon the trial, the result ought, the minds of reasonable men, to be affected. Such evidence should be ed at least, to remove the certainty of the prisoner's guilt which the evidence produced.

VOL, XLDX 29

ECR a6

H.C. oF A. 1933. Ww

Sypwey,

Aug. 18, 21, 29.

Rich, Starke, Dixon, Evatt and Meiernan a.

H.C. or A.

1933.

Crara

Tue Kiva.