R v Seery

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from a District Court of New South Wales concerning an action brought by the King and the Commonwealth of Australia against Anna Maria Seery, a postmistress. The plaintiffs sought to recover a sum of money alleged to have been collected and received by the defendant as public moneys but not paid over to them. The defendant had previously been acquitted on a charge of fraudulently converting a portion of these same moneys.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the defendant's prior acquittal on a criminal charge of fraudulent conversion constituted a defence of res judicata in the subsequent civil action to recover the moneys. The District Court Judge had directed a verdict for the defendant, finding that the defence of res judicata had been made out, based on the admission that the evidence in the civil case was substantially the same as that presented in the criminal trial.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, reasoned that the doctrine of res judicata was misapplied. The acquittal on the charge of fraudulent conversion did not necessarily determine the issue of whether the defendant had received the moneys in question. The criminal charge required proof of fraudulent intent (mens rea), a distinct element from the civil claim for money had and received. The jury's verdict of acquittal could have been based solely on the absence of fraudulent intent, without determining whether the defendant had actually received the moneys or whether they were public moneys. Therefore, the point decided in the criminal case was not the same as the point in issue in the civil action.

The High Court ordered that the appeal be allowed, the judgment of the District Court be discharged, and a new trial be ordered. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal and of the first trial.