Hicks v The King

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.