While the High Court has jurisdiction under S. 64 (1) of the Papua and New Guinea Act 1949-1950 to " hear and determine appeals from all judgments, decrees, orders and sentences of the Supreme Court of the Territory ", never- theless before it will interfere with a sentence of imprisonment imposed, it must be satisfied that the discretion exercised by the court imposing the sentence miscarried or was unsound or unreasonable in its exercise. It is not sufficient to show that the sentence is substantially greater than would have been imposed by a court sitting in Australia or by the High Court.

Cranssen v. The King (1936) 55 C.L.R. 509, at pp. 519-520 applied. Application for leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea (F. B. Phillips C.J.) refused.

APPLICATION for leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.

Edward Norman Harris appeared, upon indictment, at the criminal sittings of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea which commenced at Port Moresby before his Honour the Chief Judge, Mr. Justice F. B. Phillips on 2nd December 1953, charged with that, between 31st May 1952 and 13th October 1953, in the Territory of Papua, he stole several sums of money, the property of Kenneth Roy Wenke and others, amounting, in all, to £3,620 13s. Od. being the amount of a general deficiency in respect of divers sums of money which had come into his

90 CLR 653

possession for, and in the name, and on account, of the said Kenneth Roy Wenke and others. The accused pleaded guilty and on 7th December 1953 was sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour for four years.

From this sentence the accused sought leave to appeal to the High Court.

J. M. Cullity, for the applicant. Peter Murphy, for the respondent.

Our. adv. vult. The following written judgments were delivered :-

DIXON C.J., FULLAGAR, KITTO AND TAYLOR JJ. This is an appli- cation pursuant to S. 12 of the Supreme Court Ordinance 1949 of Papua and New Guinea for leave to appeal from a sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Supreme Court of that Territory. The applicant pleaded guilty before the Supreme Court on 2nd December 1953 to an indictment charging him with stealing between 31st May 1952 and 13th October 1953 sums of money amounting to £3,620 13s. Od. being the amount of a general deficiency. The property in the money was laid in certain persons who no doubt were office-bearers or members of a social club called the Aviat Club. On 7th December 1953 the Chief Judge, who presided, sentenced…

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 Harris v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Harris v The Queen [1954] HCA 51
Case: [1954] HCA 51
Decision Date: 12 October 1954

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Edward Norman Harris, sought leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against a sentence of four years' imprisonment with hard labour imposed by the Supreme Court of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. Harris had pleaded guilty to stealing sums of money amounting to £3,620 13s. Od. from the Aviat Club, where he held the position of Honorary Treasurer.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court was excessive and whether the discretion exercised by the sentencing judge had miscarried or was unsound or unreasonable. The applicant argued that insufficient weight had been given to his good character and first-offender status, the hardship of pre-transfer detention in New Guinea, and the views of the victimised club.

The High Court, applying the principles established in *Cranssen v. The King*, held that it would only interfere with a sentence if the discretion of the sentencing court had been improperly exercised. It was not sufficient for the appellate court to believe it would have imposed a lesser sentence. The Court found that the sentencing judge's observation regarding the potential for rehabilitation through learning a trade in prison was merely a hopeful remark and not a determinative factor in fixing the sentence. Given the jurisdiction under section 64(1) of the *Papua and New Guinea Act 1949-1950*, the Court concluded that there was no ground to justify interference with the sentence, noting that the Supreme Court of the Territory was better placed to understand local conditions.

Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

Orders