Newell v The King

The case of *Newell v The King* concerned John Manly Newell, who was charged with manslaughter in Tasmania. Newell pleaded not guilty to the indictment on 26 March 1936, and a jury was empanelled. However, the jury was unable to reach a verdict, and the trial was adjourned. Subsequently, the *Jury Act 1936* (Tas.) came into operation on 10 August 1936, which introduced provisions allowing for majority verdicts in criminal trials, except for capital charges, after two hours of deliberation. A new trial commenced on 28 August 1936, and after the jury deliberated for two hours, a verdict of ten to two was accepted and entered as the verdict of the jury. Newell was convicted on this majority verdict, and the Court of Criminal Appeal of Tasmania upheld this decision. Newell then sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the *Jury Act 1936* (Tas.), which permitted majority verdicts, applied to Newell's trial, given that the trial had commenced before the Act came into force. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Act operated retrospectively to deprive Newell of his right to a unanimous verdict, which was the law at the time of his initial arraignment and plea.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, reasoned that the right to a unanimous verdict in a criminal trial was a fundamental right and not merely a procedural matter. The court held that the *Jury Act 1936* should not be construed retrospectively to affect a trial that had already begun and where issues had been joined. The commencement of the trial was deemed to be on 26 March 1936, when Newell was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Therefore, the provisions of the new Act, allowing for majority verdicts, did not apply to his case. The court emphasised that any statute intended to take away such a fundamental right would require clear and express language indicating a retrospective operation.

Consequently, the High Court reversed the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Tasmania. The majority verdict of ten to two was deemed to be invalid, and Newell could only be convicted on a unanimous verdict. The appeal was allowed.