Hicks v The King - [1920] HCA 26

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

NEW SOUTH WALES. Criminal Law-Evidence-Corroboration-Sexud offence on young girl-Direction 1920.

to jury-Reasonable doubt, direction as -Miscarriage of justice-Practice- Appeal to High Court-Criminal matter-Point taken for first time in High SYDNEY,

Court-Jurisdiction-Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (N.S.W.) (No. 16 of 1912), April 19, 20,

On the hearing of a charge of carnally knowing a child under the age of ten years there was evidence, apart from that of the child, that at some time during a period of half an hour at night the child had been carnally known, that the accused during that period had led the child to a churchyard, and that he gave a false account of his own movements during that period.

28 CLR 37

Held, that this was corroborative evidence connecting the accused with the sexual act, and therefore that it was unnecessary for the trial Judge to caution the jury against convicting the accused on the uncorroborated evidence on oath of the child.

Hargan v. The King, 27 C.L.R., 13, distinguished. In directing the jury the trial Judge said " You are supposed to be reasonable men, and Judges have laid it down that a reasonable doubt is a reasonable doubt such as reasonable men, men of affairs going about the ordinary life of the world, would have. Such a question is for reasonable men. Whether you are satisfied on the evidence or whether there is a reasonable doubt is a question for you, and the responsibility of deciding on the facts rests with you.' "

Held, by Knox C.J., Gavan Duffy and Starke JJ. (Isaacs and Rich JJ. dissenting), that, having regard to the rest of the charge, the direction could not mislead the jury in the performance of their duty or occasion any mis- carriage of justice.

Brown v. The King, 17 C.L.R., 570, discussed. Quare, whether on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales dismissing an appeal under the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (N.S.W.) the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an objection to the direction of the trial Judge which is taken for the first time before the High

Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales affirmed.

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

At the Central Criminal Court at Sydney, before Ralston A.-J., Richard John Hicks was tried on a charge that on 27th September 1919, at Stockton, he did carnally know a girl then under the age of ten years, to wit, of the age of eight years and eight months. The accused, having been convicted, appealed to the Full Court on the grounds (among others): (6) that the presiding Judge should have specially warned the jury of the danger of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of the girl herself; (8) that the presiding Judge should have directed the jury that, if they came to the conclusion that it was indecent assault only, they should acquit, and (9) that…

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 Hicks v The King

Details

AGLC: Hicks v The King [1920] HCA 26
Case: [1920] HCA 26
Decision Date: 27 April 1920

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Hicks v The King* involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant, Richard John Hicks, had been convicted in the Supreme Court of New South Wales on a charge of carnally knowing a girl under the age of ten years. The appellant's appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales was dismissed, leading to his further appeal to the High Court by special leave.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the trial judge had adequately directed the jury regarding the danger of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of the child, whether the judge should have specifically directed the jury on the possibility of finding the accused guilty of indecent assault only, and whether the judge's direction on the meaning of "reasonable doubt" constituted a misdirection. The court also considered, though did not definitively determine, its jurisdiction to entertain a point raised for the first time on appeal to the High Court.

A majority of the High Court (Knox C.J., Gavan Duffy and Starke JJ.) held that there was sufficient corroborative evidence connecting the accused with the sexual act, rendering a specific caution against uncorroborated evidence unnecessary. This corroboration included evidence that the accused led the child to a churchyard during the period the offence occurred and provided a false account of his movements. Regarding the direction on reasonable doubt, the majority found that, when considered in the context of the entire summing-up, it was unlikely to have misled the jury or occasioned a miscarriage of justice, despite not being the most felicitous wording. Isaacs and Rich JJ., dissenting, argued that the direction on reasonable doubt, by equating it to the standard used in the ordinary affairs of life, constituted a fundamental error that diminished the jury's sense of responsibility and likely led to a miscarriage of justice, warranting a new trial.

The High Court, by majority, dismissed the appeal. The decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales was affirmed.

Orders