R v Snow [1915] HCA 90

H.C. or A.

oS

Tue Kine

Snow.

HIGH COURT flo

oa

High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a judgment discharg- ing an accused person, that section does not confer jurisdiction on the High Court to set aside a verdict of "not guilty," so that, when, as in this case, — the judgment properly followed the verdict, the granting of special leave to appeal would be futile; and, as to the direction, on the ground that it was _ not a "judgment" from which under see. 73 an appeal lies to the High Court ;

By Powers J., on the ground that, although under sec. 73 the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the judgment of acquittal, to set aside the verdict and to grant a new trial, the discretion to grant special — leave to appeal should not in the cireumstances be exercised.

Musgrove v. McDonald, 3 C.L.R., 132, and Baume v. The Commonweulth, — 4 C.L.R., 97, discussed. ;

Special leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of South Australia (Gordon J.) refused.

App.ication for special leave to appeal. At the Criminal Sessions of the Supreme Court of South Australia — before Gordon J. and a jury, Francis Hugh Snow was presented on ; information charging him with attempting to trade with the enemy on a number of specified days both before and after 23rd October 1914, on which date the Trading with the Enemy Act 1914 was passed. At the conclusion of the case for the prosecution, counsel for the accused contended that the Trading with the Enemy Act 1914 was not retrospective as to attempts to trade with the enemy, — and that there was no evidence fit to be submitted to the jury of - any attempt to trade with the enemy after the passing of the Act. The learned Judge agreed with these contentions and directed the — jury to return a verdict of "not guilty," which they did, and the accused was ordered to be discharged from custody. The Crown moved for special leave to appeal to the High Court. ; Other material facts are stated in the judgments hereunder. The motion was originally heard on 24th May at Adelaide before Griffith C.J. and Isaacs J., when Cleland K.C. and F. Villeneuve Smith appeared in support of the motion. The Court on 16th . June suggested that the motion should be renewed before a Full 3 Bench on notice to Snow. The motion was now renewed accord-