(Girls' Protection) Amendment Act 1911 (N.S.W.) (No. 21 of 1911), sec. 2 (b).
The absence of a shorthand note of the proceedings at the trial of any person on indictment, as provided for by sec. 21 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, does not of itself amount to a ground entitling an accused person to
A Court of Criminal Appeal should not interfere with a sentence merely because members of the Court might have inflicted a different sentence more or less severe, nor unless the Court sees that the sentence is manifestly exces- sive or manifestly inadequate.
Sec. 71 of the Crimes Act 1900 provides that " whosoever unlawfully and carnally knows any girl of or above the age of ten years, and under the age of fourteen years, shall be liable to penal servitude for ten years." Sec. 2 of the Crimes (Girls' Protection) Act 1910 substitutes sixteen years for fourteen years in that section and adds the following proviso :- Provided that it is sufficient defence to any charge which renders a person liable to be found guilty of an offence described in" sec. 71 "of the Principal Act, as amended by this Act, in respect of offences under" that section " where the girl in question was over the age of fourteen years, if it shall be made to appear to the Court or jury before whom the charge is brought that the girl was at the time of the alleged offence a common prostitute, or an associate of common
prostitutes, or that the person so charged had reasonable cause to believe that she was of or above the age of sixteen years."
Held, that the words "common prostitute" there mean a woman who carries on the trade or business of prostitution and submits herself to men for the purpose of gain. Direction of Judge to jury in that sense approved.
Special leave to appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court of New Wales R. v. Skinner, 13 S.R. (N.S.W.), 280, refused.
APPLICATION for special leave to appeal.
Herbert James Edward Skinner was tried before Pring J. at the sittings of the Supreme Court at Armidale, New South Wales, upon an indictment under the Crimes Act 1900, as amended by the Crimes (Girls' Protection) Act 1910 and the Crimes (Girls' Protection) Amendment Act 1911, for carnally knowing a certain girl over the age of ten years and under the age of sixteen years. He was convicted and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. No shorthand note was taken of the pro- ceedings under…
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 Skinner v The King
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Skinner v The King [1913] HCA 32
Case
[1913] HCA 32
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia following the dismissal of an appeal by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant, Herbert James Edward Skinner, had been convicted and sentenced for carnally knowing a girl under the age of sixteen years. The grounds of appeal to the Supreme Court included alleged misdirection by the trial judge regarding the meaning of "common prostitute," the verdict being against the evidence, prejudice arising from the judge's recommendation to prosecute defence witnesses, and the sentence being excessive.
The legal issues before the High Court were whether the trial judge had misdirected the jury on the meaning of "common prostitute" as defined in the Crimes (Girls' Protection) Act 1910, whether the absence of a shorthand note of the trial proceedings was a ground for appeal, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The Court also considered the principles governing the grant of special leave to appeal in criminal matters.
The High Court held that the absence of a shorthand note did not, of itself, entitle an accused person to have a conviction set aside, as the relevant statutory provision was directory and the appellant had not been prejudiced. Regarding the sentence, the Court reiterated that it would not interfere unless the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate, and that a judge's discretion in sentencing would generally be respected. The central issue of misdirection concerned the definition of "common prostitute." The trial judge had directed the jury that this meant a woman who carried on the trade or business of prostitution for gain. The High Court found this definition to be the ordinary and correct interpretation of the term in the statutory context, and therefore, there was no misdirection. The Court also dismissed the argument regarding prejudice from the judge's remarks to the police, deeming it unworthy of attention.