Kerridge v Simmonds

In *Kerridge v Simmonds*, the Supreme Court of Queensland considered a dispute arising from an agreement to compromise a criminal prosecution. The plaintiff, Kerridge, sought to enforce a deed against the defendant, Simmonds, which purported to settle a criminal charge.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the deed, which involved the compromise of a criminal prosecution, was void as being contrary to public policy. The Court was required to determine if such an agreement could be legally binding or if it offended fundamental principles of justice and the administration of criminal law.

The Court held that a deed which compromises a criminal prosecution is void as being contrary to public policy. It reasoned that allowing private individuals to bargain away criminal prosecutions would undermine the public interest in the impartial enforcement of the criminal law and could lead to abuses. The Court applied the principle that agreements which tend to pervert the course of justice are unenforceable.

Consequently, the Court found that the deed was void and unenforceable, and therefore the plaintiff's claim based on the deed failed.