Riddle v The King

The case of *Riddle v The King* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia following a conviction for wounding with intent to murder. The appellant, John Thomas Riddle, was charged with wounding his wife, Ruby Riddle. At trial, Mrs. Riddle stated she did not wish to give evidence, but the presiding Chief Justice, following the precedent of *R. v. Stocks*, ruled that she was a compellable witness against her husband due to the nature of the offence. The question of whether this ruling was correct was reserved for the Supreme Court, which affirmed the conviction, and subsequently appealed to the High Court.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the interpretation of section 407 of the *Crimes Act 1900* (NSW), which stipulated that the husband or wife of an accused person "shall be competent, but not compellable, to give evidence in such proceeding in every Court." The Court was required to determine whether, despite the clear wording of this section, a wife was compellable to give evidence against her husband in cases of personal injury, as had been suggested by the common law and the prior decision in *R. v. Stocks*. A further issue was whether an erroneous ruling on compellability constituted a question of law arising on the trial that could be reserved under section 428 of the *Crimes Act 1900* (NSW).

The High Court, in allowing the appeal and quashing the conviction, held that the plain and unambiguous language of section 407 of the *Crimes Act 1900* (NSW) must be given effect. The Court found that the section explicitly stated that a spouse was competent but not compellable to give evidence. While acknowledging that prior law and the decision in *R. v. Stocks* had suggested a wife might be compellable in cases of personal injury to herself, the Court concluded that the statutory provision was clear and did not incorporate any such exception. The judges considered the historical common law position and found it to be at best doubtful whether a wife was compellable, and certainly not to the extent that it could override the express statutory language. The Court also determined that compelling a witness to give evidence against her husband, contrary to the statute, constituted a departure from the law to the prejudice of the prisoner, and therefore a question of law that could be reserved. The decision in *R. v. Stocks* was overruled on this point.