Williams v R (No 2) [1934] HCA 19

Cam Be 1 ; "Hesse MPa fe. a A Oa dena ears si: a 7 C005 ater Scone Rett, Cons VThaller Rv Thaller Y Gee 2001) 79, Dont oon iat GooS Io, SAS 295 oy Hise oot ae ALR 382 pl

05) fa0 'Crim 153

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

ia fs " é . APPLICANT ;

AND

ade 5 c fi é . RESPONDENT.

[No. 2.]

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

riminal Law—Appeal—Indictable offence against law of Commonwealth—Appeal H.C. or A. against sentence by Commonwealth Attorney-General—Appeal to State Court of 1934. Criminal Appeal—Jurisdiction—The Constitution (68 & 64 Vict. c. 12), secs. 51 "7 (xxxrx.), 77 (11.)—Judiciary Act 1903-1932 (No. 6 of 1903—No. 60 of 1932), Mzunourns,

~ secs. 68," 77—Criminal Appeal Act 1912-1924 (N.S.W.) (No. 16 of 1912—No. May 8,9; 10 of 1924), sec. 5p.*. pene

a Bit Gavan Dufly A prisoner having been sentenced by a New South Wales Court to imprison- _C.J., Rich,

ee ir ion cgteidcaesinstitawiot the Commonwoalih,the Atiomey- ©eca" General of the Commonwealth appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal of M°Teman 99. New South Wales against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy, That

Court increased the sentence. On an application by the prisoner for special

leave to appeal from this decision to the High Court, Gavan Duffy C.J. and

Evatt and McTiernan JJ. were of opinion that sec. 68 of the Judiciary Act

1903-1932 did not operate upon sec. 5p of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912-1924

(N.S.W.) so as to enable the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth to appeal

to the Court of Criminal Appeal; Rich, Starke and Dixon JJ, were of opinion

that it did so operate. The Court being equally divided, leave to appeal was

refused.

ication for special leave to appeal from the Court of Criminal peal of New South Wales.

* The provisions of these sections are set out at p. 536, ante.

552 HIGH COURT (1934,