R v Snow - [1918] HCA 48

RESPONDENT.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

SOUTH AUSTRALIA. Criminal Law-Case reserved at the trial-Subsequent amendment of case asking new

question-Misdirection-Misinterpretation of evidence-Special leave to appeal to High Court-Judiciary Act 1903-1915 (No. 6 of 1903-No. 4 of 1915), sec.

On a trial in the Supreme Court of a State for trading with the enemy the accused was convicted, and the trial Judge thereupon reserved a case for the Full Court pursuant to sec. 72 of the Judiciary Act 1903-1915. On appeal to the High Court from the decision of the Full Court thereon the case was remitted to the trial Judge for amendment by the addition, for the considera- tion of the Full Court, of certain evidence admitted at the trial. On case as amended coming again before the Full Court. the trial Judge further amended it by stating that in his direction to the jury he had misinterpreted a part of that evidence and had told the jury upon that misinterpretation that they might find the accused guilty of an attempt to trade with the enemy,

25 CLR 378

and be asked whether under these circumstances the verdict could stand. No attention had been called to this point at the trial. The Full Court held that the direction was wrong, and ordered a new trial.

The High Court refused special leave to appeal.

APPLICATION for special leave to appeal.

At the criminal sittings of the Supreme Court of South Australia held in November 1915, at Adelaide, Francis Hugh Snow was tried before Murray C.J. and a jury on an information charging him on two counts with trading with the enemy, and was convicted on the second count. Murray C.J. then reserved for the Full Court the question whether certain holdings and directions to the jury were right in law. The Full Court, upon the hearing of the question, ordered the conviction to be set aside and a verdict of not guilty to be entered. From that decision the Crown appealed to the High Court, and that Court allowed the appeal, and ordered that the order of the Supreme Court should be set aside, and that the case should be remitted to Murray C.J. for the addition to it for the consideration of the Full Court of copies of certain letters and telegrams which had been admitted in evidence at the trial, or of such portions thereof as, consistently with the reasons of the High Court and the order, he might deem material for the purpose of elucidating his direction to the jury in relation to the points reserved (R. v. Snow 1 ). On the case being remitted Murray C.J. added all the letters and telegrams to it. The case subsequently came on for reargument before the Full Court of the Supreme Court, and during the argument a further statement and a further question were, on 17th June 1918, added by Murray C.J. as follows :- " When charging the jury I misinterpreted part…

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 Snow

Details

AGLC: R v Snow [1918] HCA 48
Case: [1918] HCA 48
Decision Date: 12 September 1918

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerns an appeal to the High Court of Australia following a conviction for trading with the enemy in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The accused, Francis Hugh Snow, was convicted on one count. The trial judge initially reserved a case for the Full Court of South Australia. Following an appeal to the High Court, the case was remitted for amendment to include certain documentary evidence. Upon reargument before the Full Court, the trial judge further amended the case, admitting that he had misinterpreted evidence when directing the jury, leading to a potential misdirection regarding an attempt to trade with the enemy. This point had not been raised during the trial.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the trial judge had the jurisdiction to amend the reserved case to include a new question concerning a misinterpretation of evidence that was not raised at trial, and whether, in light of this misinterpretation, the jury's verdict could stand. The Crown argued that the judge lacked jurisdiction to amend the case at that stage and that the misinterpretation was not a material misdirection.

The Full Court of South Australia, by majority, held that the trial judge's direction, based on his misinterpretation of the cablegram, was wrong and consequently ordered a new trial. The High Court, in refusing special leave to appeal, did not express an opinion on the substantive legal points raised.

Orders