A reward was publicly offered by the Government of Western Australia "for such information as shall lead to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons who committed the murders" of two police officers. C., who knew of the offer, gave information that led to the arrest of one person, and the

40 CLR 228

conviction of that person and another, for the murder of one of those officers. By petition of right under the Crown Suits Act 1898 C. claimed payment of

Held, that unless the petitioner had performed the conditions of the offer acting on the faith of or in reliance upon the offer, there was no acceptance of the offer, and, therefore, no contract between the parties; and that as there was no reason for interfering with the finding of the trial Judge that the petitioner had not acted on the faith of or in reliance upon the offer, the petitioner was not entitled to recover payment of the reward.

Williams v. Carwardine, (1833) 4 B. &Ad. 621 1 N. &M. 418; 2 L.J. K.B. (N.S.) 101, discussed.

Decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Full Court) reversed.

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

By petition of right under the Crown Suits Act 1898 (W.A.) Evan Clarke claimed £1,000 from the Crown in the following circum- stances :-By proclamation dated 21st May 1926 R. Connell, Commissioner of Police, gave notice that he was authorized by the Government of Western Australia " to offer a reward of one thousand pounds for such information as shall lead to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons who committed the murders" of John Joseph Walsh, inspector of police, and Alexander Henry Pitman, sergeant of police," and that His Excellency the Governor will be advised to extend a free pardon to any accomplice not being the person who actually committed the murders who shall first give the required information." On 6th June a man named Philip John Treffene and the petitioner were arrested and charged in connection with the murder of Walsh. On 10th June the petitioner, who had seen the proclamation, made a statement to the police that on 28th April a man named "Coulter said" to petitioner

Pitman and Walsh came on us to-day and Phil shot Pitman before I knew what happened and then I shot Walsh,' and Treffene then spoke and said 'I shot Pitman and I then told Bill

I had done my share and he could shoot Walsh; and he did so.'" Coulter was thereupon arrested. Subsequently, on the trial of Treffene and Coulter for the wilful murder of Walsh, the petitioner (who was called as a Crown witness) gave evidence in accordance with his statement. Treffene and…

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 R v Clarke

Details

AGLC: R v Clarke [1927] HCA 47
Case: [1927] HCA 47
Decision Date: 22 November 1927

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an appeal by the Crown from a decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The respondent, Evan Clarke, had claimed a reward of £1,000 offered by the Government of Western Australia for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the persons responsible for the murders of two police officers. Clarke provided information that led to the arrest and conviction of two individuals for the murder of one of the officers.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether a contract had been formed between Clarke and the Crown. Specifically, the court had to determine if Clarke's actions constituted an acceptance of the Crown's offer, thereby entitling him to the reward. This required an examination of whether Clarke had acted in reliance upon or in response to the offer of the reward when he provided the information.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, held that for a contract to arise from an offer of a reward, the person claiming the reward must have performed the conditions of the offer acting on the faith of, or in reliance upon, that offer. The court found that the trial judge's finding that Clarke had not acted in reliance on the offer was not to be interfered with. Clarke's own evidence indicated that his primary motivation for providing the information was to extricate himself from a murder charge, rather than to claim the reward. Therefore, there was no acceptance of the offer and consequently no contract.

The High Court reversed the decision of the Full Court of Western Australia and restored the judgment of the trial judge, finding that Clarke was not entitled to recover the reward.

Orders