Beckett v The King - [1922] HCA 48

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

QUEENSLAND. Criminal LLaw-Murder-Conviction of child under seventeen years of age-Sentence

-Abolition of capital punishment-Statute-InterpretationCriminal Code (Qd.) (63 Vict. No. 9, Sched. I.), sec. 305*-State Children Act 1911 (Qd.) (2 SYDNEY,

Geo. v. No. 11), secs. 4, 24 *-Criminal Code Amendment Act 1922 (Qd.) (13 Geo. v. No. 2), secs. 2, 3.* * Sec. 305 of the Criminal Code (Qd.)

to a reformatory or industrial school. provides that any person who commits

and to be there detained or to be other- the crime of wilful murder is liable to

wise dealt with under this Act &. the punishment of death.

Sec. 2 of the Criminal Code Amend- Sec. 4 of the State Children Act of 1911

ment Act of 1922 (Qd.), which came (Qd.) defines the word child' as

into operation on 31st July 1922, meaning "a boy or girl under the age

provided that "The sentence of or apparent age of seventeen years,"

punishment by death shall no longer and the word convicted" as meaning

be pronounced or recorded, and the "found guilty or convicted of any

punishment of death shall no longer be crime or offence punishable by im-

inflicted." Sec. 3 amends the Criminal prisonment." Sec. 24 provides that

Code (inter alia) by repealing the words " If any child is convicted, the Court

the punishment of death in sec. 305 having cognizance of the case shall not

and inserting in lieu thereof the words sentence such child to imprisonment,

imprisonment with hard labour for but shall-(a) Commit such child to the

life, which cannot be mitigated or care of the " State Children Depart-

varied under section nineteen of this ment; or (b) Order such child to be sent

31 CLR 247

Held, that a child under the age of seventeen years, convicted, after the H coming into operation of the Criminal Code Amendment Act of 1922 (Qd.), of murder, cannot be sentenced to imprisonment, but must be dealt with in accordance with sec. 24 of the State Children Act of 1911 (Qd.).

R. v. Beeston, (1915) S.R. (Qd.), 101, approved. Decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland R. v. Beckett, (1922) S.R. (Qd.), 287, reversed.

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of Queensland.

At the Circuit Court at Maryborough on 28th August 1922 Clive Beckett, a boy of the age of thirteen years and nine months, was con- victed of wilful murder, and was sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour for life. He appealed from the sentence to the Supreme Court sitting as the Court of Criminal Appeal, and that Court, by a majority (McCawley C.J., O'Sullivan and Blair JJ., Shand and Lukin JJ. dissenting), dismissed the appeal R. v. Beckett 1.

From that decision Beckett applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal and on the hearing of the application special leave to appeal was granted, and the appeal was heard forthwith.

Salkeld, for the appellant. Sec. 24 of the State Children…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Beckett v The King

Details

AGLC: Beckett v The King [1922] HCA 48
Case: [1922] HCA 48
Decision Date: 11 December 1922

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellant, Clive Beckett, a boy aged thirteen years and nine months, had been convicted of wilful murder and sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour for life by the Supreme Court. The appeal arose from the Supreme Court's dismissal of Beckett's appeal against this sentence.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether a child under the age of seventeen years, convicted of murder after the commencement of the Criminal Code Amendment Act 1922 (Qld), could be sentenced to imprisonment, or if they were instead required to be dealt with under section 24 of the State Children Act 1911 (Qld). This involved the interpretation of the interplay between the Criminal Code, the State Children Act, and the subsequent amendments abolishing capital punishment.

The High Court, allowing the appeal, reasoned that the State Children Act 1911, particularly section 24, applied to any child under seventeen convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment. The Court affirmed the prior decision in *R. v. Beeston* which held that section 24 applied to convictions in the Supreme Court. Crucially, the Criminal Code Amendment Act 1922 abolished capital punishment and substituted imprisonment with hard labour for life for wilful murder. Consequently, the appellant, having been convicted of murder after this amendment, was now liable to imprisonment. As he was under seventeen, section 24 of the State Children Act mandated that he not be sentenced to imprisonment, but rather be dealt with according to the provisions of that section.

The High Court quashed the sentence of imprisonment with hard labour for life. The matter was remitted to the Court of Criminal Appeal of Queensland to be dealt with in accordance with the High Court's decision.

Orders