R v Richards; Ex parte

92 CLR 171

[PRIVY COUNCIL.]

THE QUEEN RICHARDS; Ex PARTE FITZPATRICK AND BROWNE. Privy Council-Appeal from High Court-Special leave-Grounds on which granted-

Great public importance--Basis for challenge to judgment under appeal.

To justify a grant of special leave of appeal from the High Court to Her Majesty in Council it is at least necessary to show that the matter under review is of great public importance and that there is some ground for the challenge to the judgment against which it is sought to appeal.

Decision of the High Court, Reg. v. Richards; Ex parte Fitzpatrick and Lord Cohen, Browne (ante p. 157), refusing two writs of habeas corpus, held to be unim- peachable. PETITION.

This was a petition for special leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council against a judgment of the High Court dismissing applica- tions for two writs of habeas corpus directed to Edward Richards as the person for the time being performing the dutes of Chief Commis- sioner of Police at Canberra sought by Raymond Edward Fitzpatrick and Frank Courtney Browne. The circumstances out of which the applications arose and the judgment of the High Court thereon appear ante pp. 157-170.

Sir Hartley Shawcross Q.C., R. J. M. Newton Q.C. and John Brunyate for the petitioners Fitzpatrick and Browne.

The Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, the Hon. J. A. Spicer Q.C., J. D. Holmes Q.C., R. Else-Mitchell and H. A. P. Fisher, for the respondent, were not called upon to argue.

92 CLR 172

The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by :-

VISCOUNT SIMONDS. In order that their Lordships may feel justified in advising Her Majesty to grant leave to appeal, two

THE QUEEN

conditions at least must be satisfied. The first is that the matter

RICHARDS;

under review should be one of great public importance. That condition is satisfied in this case. But the second condition is this: it must be shown that there is some ground for challenging the correctness of the judgment against which it is sought to appeal. In this case, having carefully considered the judgment of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, and having listened to the arguments that have been adduced against its correctness, their Lordships are satisfied that that judgment is unimpeachable, and that leave to appeal should not be granted. Their Lordships will humbly advise Her Majesty accordingly.

Petition dismissed. Solicitors for the petitioners, Pothecary &Barratt. Solicitors for the respondent, Coward, Chance &Co.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Richards; Ex parte Fitzpatrick and Browne involved a petition for special leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council against a judgment of the High Court. The applicants, Raymond Edward Fitzpatrick and Frank Courtney Browne, sought writs of habeas corpus directed to Edward Richards, who was the Chief Commissioner of Police at Canberra at the time. The High Court had dismissed the applications, and the applicants sought to appeal this decision to the Privy Council. The central issue before the Privy Council was whether special leave to appeal should be granted. For such leave to be granted, the matter must be of great public importance and there must be a reasonable ground for challenging the correctness of the High Court's judgment.

The Privy Council carefully considered the judgment of the High Court, as well as the arguments presented by the applicants. Viscount Simonds, delivering the judgment, noted that while the matter was indeed of great public importance, the Privy Council found no grounds for challenging the correctness of the High Court's judgment. The Privy Council was satisfied that the judgment of the High Court was unimpeachable. Consequently, their Lordships advised Her Majesty that leave to appeal should not be granted. The petition for special leave to appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the High Court stood affirmed.

This case underscores the rigorous standards required for granting special leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the High Court. It highlights the importance of both the public significance of the matter and the existence of substantial grounds for challenging the High Court's decision. In this instance, neither condition was met, resulting in the dismissal of the petition.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established