Skinner v The King

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.

Special leave to appeal was refused.