NEW SOUTH WALES. Criminal Law-Evidence-Child of tender years-Corroboration-Complaint made by
child-False statements made by accused-Crimes Act 1900 (N.S.W.) (No. 40 of 1900), sec. 418. SYDNEY,
On the hearing of a charge of indecently assaulting a girl of the age of five April 17;
years evidence not on oath was given by the girl, pursuant to sec. 418 of the May 2.
Crimes Act 1900 (N.S.W.), that the accused had indecently assaulted her and stating the circumstances of the assault.
Held, that evidence that immediately after the assault was alleged to have taken place the girl had voluntarily made a complaint to the same effect as her evidence at the trial was not corroborative of her testimony within the meaning
Held, also, that, there being independent evidence establishing opportunity for the accused to have committed the offence charged, statements made by the accused which the jury might believe to be false, and to have been made in order to discredit the evidence given against him because he was unable to account for the facts to which the witnesses testified in any way consistent with his innocence, might be corroborative of the girl's testimony within the meaning of sub-sec. 2 of sec. 418.
Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Full Court): R. v. Eade, (1923) 24 S.R. (N.S.W.) 117, reversed.
APPLICATION for special leave to appeal, and appeal, from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
At the Newcastle Circuit Court on 11th October 1923, before Ralston A.J. and a jury, Joseph Eade was tried on a charge of indecently assaulting a girl under the age of sixteen years, to wit, of the age of five years. The girl was not sworn as a witness but gave evidence not on oath pursuant to sec. 418 of the Crimes Act 1900 (N.S.W.). The accused, having been convicted and sentenced to five years' imprisonment, appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal on the ground that the evidence given by the girl was not corroborated as required by sec. 418, and therefore that the learned Judge should have taken the case from the jury. The Court dismissed the appeal R. v. Eade 1.
The accused now applied for special leave to appeal from that decision, and, special leave having been granted, the appeal was heard.
The other material facts are stated in the judgments hereunder. Curtis (with him Hunter), for the appellant. There was no corroboration of the evidence of the child within the meaning of sec. 418 of the Crimes Act 1900 (N.S.W.). The only evidence to prove that an assault was committed was that of the child, and the evidence that she had made a complaint was not corroborative of that evidence, but only showed that her story was consistent. What is required by sec. 418 2 is that there should be independent evidence that an assault had been committed and that the accused was…
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 Eade v The King
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Eade v The King [1924] HCA 9
Case
[1924] HCA 9
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of *Eade v The King* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant, Joseph Eade, had been convicted in the Newcastle Circuit Court of indecently assaulting a five-year-old girl. The girl, being of tender years, gave evidence not on oath, pursuant to section 418 of the *Crimes Act 1900* (N.S.W.). Eade appealed his conviction to the Court of Criminal Appeal, which dismissed his appeal, and he subsequently sought and was granted special leave to appeal to the High Court.
The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the evidence of the child's voluntary complaint made immediately after the alleged assault constituted corroboration of her testimony for the purposes of section 418(2) of the *Crimes Act*, and if not, whether there was other sufficient independent evidence implicating the accused to satisfy the corroboration requirement. Section 418(2) stipulated that no person could be convicted unless the prosecution's testimony admitted under that section was corroborated by other material evidence implicating the accused.
The High Court, in a majority decision, held that the child's voluntary complaint, made shortly after the alleged offence, was not corroborative of her testimony within the meaning of section 418(2). The Court reasoned that a witness cannot corroborate their own evidence, and the evidence of the complaint merely confirmed the consistency of the child's story, rather than providing independent material evidence implicating the accused. However, the Court found that statements made by the accused, which the jury might have believed to be false and made to discredit the child's evidence because he could not explain the facts consistently with his innocence, could constitute corroboration. The Court also noted that independent evidence establishing the opportunity for the accused to commit the offence, when considered alongside the accused's potentially false denials, could be sufficient to satisfy the corroboration requirement.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial. The Court determined that while the child's complaint was not sufficient corroboration, the case should not have been withdrawn from the jury, as there was potentially sufficient corroborative evidence in the accused's conduct and statements to warrant a new trial.