JHAP. TIT] JUDICIAL APPEALS 1359 
attempt to bar the prerogative has not been effectual, and 
“hat the prerogative could still be exercised. It is, however, 
a matter of no substantial consequence, as criminal appeals 
are always open to serious objection, and are very rarely 
entertained by the Privy Council, and it is not therefore 
likely that such an appeal will again be permitted! That 
it could legally be permitted is certain. Power is given to 
the Parliaments of the Commonwealth by s. 74 of the Consti- 
bution, and of the Union of South Africa by s. 106 of the 
South Africa Act, to limit the subjects with regard to which 
Special leave of appeal may be granted, but Bills under this 
power must be reserved, and no such Bill has yet been intro- 
duced even into the Parliament of the Commonwealth. 
Under this power it would be impossible to abolish the power 
~—for limitation is not abolition—but it could be practically 
reduced to almost nil.2 
The power of hearing appeals thus belonging to the Crown 
is exercised in two ways ; on the one hand a code of rules is 
laid down permitting appeals as of right, that is to say, 
appeals which automatically take place if the conditions 
laid down are fulfilled,® while in addition it is open to any 
defeated suitor to ask the Privy Council to give him special 
leave to appeal from the decision of any Court whatever. 
The rules in the first case normally apply only to the final 
Court of Appeal, as itis not usual that appeals should lie as of 
right from two Courts in one Dominion. There is an exception 
bo this in the case of Quebec and New Zealand, where appeals 
lie both from the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. In 
the case of South Australia appeals as of right lay only from 
the Supreme Court, as there was in that Colony a Court of 
Appeal consisting of the Governor, with what was practically 
the Executive Council, but which now is hardly ever used. 
' Cf. Falkland Islands Co. v. Reg., 1 Moo. P. C. (N. 8.)299, at p. 312; in 
re Dillet, 12 App. Cas, 459; Riel v. Reg., 10 App. Cas. 675; Tshingumuzi 
v. Attorney-General of Natal, [1908] A. C. 248. 
* Quick and Garran, op. cit., p. 713. 
' The leave which is always needed is then granted by the Colonial Court. 
[f there are no rules, or the rules do not cover the point, special leave must 
be asked. Cf. Gillett v. Lumsden, [1905] A. C. 601. 
q9