R v Eyles [1917] HCA 5

REPORTS OF CASES

DETERMINED IN THE

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

1917.

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)

THE KING ' 'i : ' ; z . APPELLANT ;

AND

EYLES 3 7 7 : u . RESPONDENT.

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

Criminal Law—Appeal—Conviction for murder—Quashing conviction—New trial— H. C. or A.

Miscarriage of justice—Allusions by prosecuting counsel to rejected evidence— 1917. Lapse of time—Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (N.S.W.) (No. 16 of 1912), secs. 6, 8. ww MELBOURNE,

See. 6 of the Criminal Appeal Act of 1912 (N.8.W.) provides (1) that on an yrarch, 12,13,

appeal against a conviction the Court shall allow the appeal if it is of opinion =» —— that the verdict of the jury should be set aside on the ground that it is unreason- Lace nok able, or eannot be supported, having regard to the evidence, or that the judg- Gavan Dully ment of the Court of trial should be set aside on the ground of the wrong decision i" of any question of law, or that on any other ground whatsoever there was a miscarriage of justice ; (2) that, subject to the special provisions of the Act, the Court shall, if it allows an appeal against a conviction, quash the conviction. Sec. 8 (1) provides that "on an appeal against a conviction on indictment, the Court may, either of its own motion, or on the application of the appellant, order a new trial . . . if the Court considers that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, and that, having regard to all the circumstances, such mis- carriage of justice can be more adequately remedied by an order for a new trial than by any other order which the Court is empowered to make."

VoL, XXUT, 1

H.C. or A.

1917. Tur Kine o Ey Les.

HIGH COURT {19175

as convicted on a charge of murder, the evidence being

He appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court 'The trial Judge stated in his report that he had no reason idence did not fully justify the conviction, Te Full conduct of the Crown Prosecutor during his address to