Russell v Bates - [1927] HCA 56

27pCR108

40 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.

209

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

RUSSELL ..

A p p e l l a n t ;

I n f o r m a n t ,

BATES AND OTHERS.

R e s p o n d e n t s .

D e f e n d a n t s ,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

NEW SOUTH WALES.

Court of Quarter Sessions {N.S.W.)—Jurisdiction— Prosecution before Stipendiary H . C. o r A.

Magistrate—Different charges against different persons heard together— Mistrial

1927.

— Appeal from convictions to Court of Quarter Sessions— Justices Act 1902

'.-v—'

(N.S.W.) (No. 27 of 1902), secs. 122, 125, 133—

and Betting Act 1912 Nov. 17, 0 8 ;

(N.S. W.) (No. 25 of 1912), sec. 40. D e ^ O .

?!dox C.J.,

A Stipendiary Magistrate of New South Wales heard together different Isaacs, Higgins,

charges against different persons and he convicted them. Powere,^Rich’

and Starke J J .

Held, that, whether the Magistrate had or had not jurisdiction to hear the charges together, an appeal lay from the convictions to a Court of Quarter Sessions under sec. 122 of the Justices Act 1902 (N.S.W.).

Held, also, that on an appeal from such convictions the Court of Quarter Sessions had no jurisdiction without the consent of each of the accused persons to hear the appeals together.

Queers, whether with the consent of all the accused persons the Magistrate had jurisdiction to hear the cases together or the Court of Quarter Sessions had jurisdiction to hear the appeals together.

Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Full C ourt): Russell V. Bates, (1927) 27 S.R. (N.S.W.) 257, reversed.

A p p e a l from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

On the hearing before a Court of Quarter Sessions of New South Wales of an appeal by Albert Bates, Nellie IsabeljBates and William

VOL. XL.

210 HIGH COURT

[1927.

H.C. or A. Robert Saunderson from their conviction by a Stipendiary Magistrate

1927. certain offences under the

Gaming and Betting Act 1912 (N.S.W.),

R u s s e l lthe Chairman of Quarter Sessions stated the following case for the

B a t e s .opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeal;—

On 16th March 1927 Sergeant Alexander Russell laid a complaint before a Magistrate asking for the issue of a special warrant under the provisions of sec. 40 of the Gaming and Betting Act 1912. Such special warrant was duly issued and under it certain persons were arrested. Upon arrest Albert Bates and Nellie Isabel Bates were entered in the charge sheet as being charged (briefly) with using a house for the purpose of betting, and a third person, William Robert Saunderson, was charged for being without lawful excuse upon the premises in question. Upon the matter coming on for hearing before the Stipendiary Magistrate, the Magistrate heard both cases together, and convicted the two first named of…

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 Russell v Bates

Details

AGLC: Russell v Bates [1927] HCA 56
Case: [1927] HCA 56
Decision Date: 10 December 1927

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Russell v Bates*, heard before the Court of Quarter Sessions in New South Wales, the central dispute concerned an alleged mistrial. The prosecution involved multiple charges brought against different individuals, which were heard concurrently.

The court was required to determine whether the joint hearing of distinct charges against separate defendants constituted a mistrial, thereby invalidating the proceedings.

The court reasoned that the fundamental principle of a fair trial requires that charges against different individuals be heard separately, particularly when the evidence led for one charge might improperly influence the jury's decision on another. The joint hearing, in this instance, was found to have prejudiced the defendants by potentially conflating the evidence and creating an unfair risk of conviction based on matters not directly relevant to each individual's alleged culpability.

Consequently, the court declared a mistrial, setting aside the previous proceedings.

Orders