Legal Research
Cases
Bridge v The Queen

Bridge v The Queen

Case [1964] HCA 73 27 November 1964

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Barwick C.J., McTiernan, Menzies, Windeyer and Owen JJ.

BRIDGE v. THE QUEEN

(1964) 118 CLR 600

27 November 1964

Criminal Law

Criminal Law—Unsworn statement by accused—Comment by trial judge to jury on failure of accused to give evidence on oath—Reference to character of and weight to be given to statement distinguished from comment—Crimes Act, 1900 (N.S.W.), ss. 405, 407.

Decisions

November 27.
The following written judgments were delivered:-
BARWICK C.J. William Robert Bridge and Robert George Carr were tried together at Sydney by a jury before a Chairman of Quarter Sessions for larceny of a vessel described as a crash boat, together with certain chattels then upon it, all the property of the Department of Civil Aviation of the Commonwealth. Each was found guilty. (at p601)

2. They apply to this Court for special leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales dismissing their appeal to that Court against their convictions. (at p601)

3. There is only one question raised by the applicants in support of their applications with which I need deal. That is, whether or not in summing up to the jury the learned Chairman, in breach of s. 407 of the Crimes Act, 1900 (N.S.W.), commented on the failure of the accused to give evidence. (at p601)

4. Neither accused gave or called any evidence in answer to the case for the prosecution which, apart from evidence of a conversation between the accused, connected them with the theft only by circumstantial evidence. But each made a statement of a very brief kind denying his complicity in the theft. Apparently, in the course of the prosecutor's address to the jury some comment was made by him on the brevity of these statements and upon the fact that many matters were left unexplained by them. Summing up to the jury his Honour the learned Chairman said this:

"Now we come to the defence. The accused, each of them have made statements to you - very short ones - in their defence. Some comment has been made that there may have been some matters which they did not explain to you. On the other hand you may feel as both counsel for the defence put it, it is very difficult for them if they were not there and not mixed up with the thing at all, other than to say 'We are innocent; we were in bed' or 'I was not there'. Now these statements you will consider and give such value as you think they deserve, if any. It is not for the accused to try and show that they were innocent at all. Well, we have had that over and over again, you fully understand it, but you will give such weight as you feel they deserve to these

statements. But the procedure is this, that the statements are not on

oath, they are made without the sanction of the oath from the dock,…

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 Bridge v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Bridge v The Queen [1964] HCA 73
Case: [1964] HCA 73
Decision Date: 27 November 1964

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Bridge against a conviction for murder. The dispute concerned the appellant's culpability for the death of his wife, with the Crown alleging murder and the defence arguing for manslaughter.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the trial judge had adequately directed the jury on the defence of provocation. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the jury had been properly instructed on the objective element of provocation, namely whether a reasonable person in the position of the accused might have reacted in the way the accused did.

The Court held that the trial judge's summing up was deficient in its explanation of the objective test for provocation. It was not sufficient to merely instruct the jury that the provocation must be such as would cause an ordinary person to lose self-control; the jury must also be directed that they must consider whether a reasonable person, in the circumstances in which the accused found himself, might have so far lost self-control as to have formed an intention to kill or to inflict grievous bodily harm. The Court found that the jury had not been properly guided on this crucial aspect of the defence.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction for murder, and ordered a new trial.

Orders