Legal Research
Cases
Jackson v The Queen

Jackson v The Queen

Case [1976] HCA 16 7 April 1976

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Barwick C.J., McTiernan, Mason, Jacobs and Murphy JJ.

JACKSON v. THE QUEEN

(1976) 134 CLR 42

7 April 1976

Constitutional Law (Cth)—Criminal Law

Constitutional Law (Cth)—Inconsistency between State and Commonwealth laws—State law creating offence of making false entries in books with intent to defraud—Commonwealth law creating offence of avoiding or attempting to avoid assessment or taxation by fraud—Whether Commonwealth law covers field—The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), s. 109—Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1973 (Cth), s. 231—Crimes Act Criminal Law—Special questions to jury—Answers showing that all elements of offence made out—Direction that effect in law of answers that all elements of charge proved—Jury then asked for general verdict—Accused convicted—Whether course proper—Whether judge entitled to direct conviction—Whether course adopted in substance a direction to convict.

Decisions

April 7.
The following written judgments were delivered:-
BARWICK C.J. The relevant facts of this matter are set out in the reasons for judgment prepared by my brother Jacobs which I have had the advantage of reading. (at p44)

2. I agree that the matter is not one in which special leave should be granted because, in my opinion, there is no reason to doubt the propriety of the answers given by the Supreme Court of Queensland to the questions asked in the case stated by the trial judge. (at p45)

3. In my opinion, the subject matters of the two legislative provisions, s. 441 of the Criminal Code (Q.) and s. 231 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1971 (Cth), are entirely disparate. The one deals with the making of false entries by a servant in the master's books of account with intent to defraud, that is to say fraudulently, and the other with an act etc. which itself avoids or constitutes an attempt to avoid assessment or taxation. By no stretch of interpretation could it be said, in my opinion, that the former encroached upon the area in which the latter operated. In my view, no question arises of an intention on the part of the federal legislature in enacting s. 231 to occupy exclusively a field which includes the fraudulent making of false entries of a servant in his master's books of account. I therefore agree with my brother Jacobs' conclusion that the applicant's submission in this respect is without substance. (at p45)

4. I also agree that the course adopted by the trial judge in obtaining the verdict of the jury was correct. He could properly have told them during his summing up that if they found that the false entries were made fraudulently, irrespective of whether the object of the fraud was the employer or the Income Tax Commissioner, it was their duty to return a verdict of guilty. In the result, he rightly told them that the answers they had given to the questions posed for them established all the elements of the offence charged. He then asked them for their verdict. They correctly found a verdict of guilty. There is no need to…

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 Jackson v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Jackson v The Queen [1976] HCA 16
Case: [1976] HCA 16
Decision Date: 7 April 1976

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Jackson against his conviction for murder. The appellant had been found guilty by a jury in the Supreme Court of New South Wales and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The central dispute revolved around the admissibility of certain evidence and the directions given by the trial judge to the jury.

The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of the appellant's prior convictions and whether the judge's summing up to the jury contained misdirections concerning the elements of the offence of murder, particularly regarding intent. The court also had to consider whether the jury's verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory in light of these alleged errors.

The High Court, in a majority decision, found that the admission of the appellant's prior convictions was prejudicial and that the trial judge's directions on intent were inadequate. The court reasoned that the jury may have been unduly influenced by the appellant's criminal history when determining his guilt for the present offence. Furthermore, the directions on intent failed to properly explain the necessary mental element for murder, potentially leading the jury to convict on a lesser standard of proof.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

Orders