Corbett v The King

The case of *Corbett v The King* concerned appeals from the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. The appellants, including John Corbett, were convicted of resisting and wilfully obstructing police officers in the execution of their duty. These convictions arose from an attempt to execute a warrant of possession for a property at Bankstown, which was met with significant resistance from the tenant and others. The central dispute revolved around the validity of the warrant of possession and its execution, as well as issues concerning jury empanelment and judicial conduct during the trial.

The High Court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, it had to consider whether the warrant of possession was valid, specifically addressing whether it was correctly issued by a justice of the peace who had not been party to the original adjudication, whether it was properly directed to the constables, and whether the timeframe for its execution complied with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1899-1930 (N.S.W.). Secondly, the Court examined the legality of the jury empanelment process, particularly when the initial panel was exhausted and additional jurors were appointed from bystanders. Finally, the Court considered whether the trial judge's questioning of the accused regarding their intention to give evidence constituted an impermissible comment under the Crimes Act 1900 (N.S.W.).

The Court held that the warrant of possession was valid. It reasoned that section 98(2) of the Justices Act 1902-1918 (N.S.W.) conferred the necessary authority for a justice to issue the warrant, even if they were not the adjudicating magistrate. While the warrant's direction to police officers did not precisely align with the statutory description, the Court found this did not invalidate it. Furthermore, the Court determined that the timeframe specified in the warrant for execution was permissible under section 23(2)(c) of the Landlord and Tenant Act, which grants discretion to justices within prescribed limits. Consequently, the constables executing the warrant were acting in the lawful execution of their duty. The Court also ruled that the right of peremptory challenge should extend to jurors appointed under section 57(2) of the Jury Act 1912 (N.S.W.).

The High Court ultimately refused special leave to appeal for the appellants, upholding the validity of the warrant and the actions of the police. The Court also found that the jury empanelment process, despite the exhaustion of the initial panel, was conducted in accordance with the law. Regarding the trial judge's conduct, the Court noted observations made by Evatt J. concerning the questioning of accused persons, but the primary outcome was the affirmation of the convictions and the refusal of further appeal.