with interest at 5 per cent. and the costs of the action. Langer Owen K.C., for the plaintiffs, asked for a direction that the costs be taxed upon the highest scale in force in the Supreme Court.

GRIFFITH C.J. The costs will be taxed in accordance with the practice in the Supreme Court. They should be allowed on the highest scale, as more than £100 is involved in the case.

Solicitors, for the plaintiffs, MacLachlan &Murray. Solicitors, for defendants, Muenamara &Smith for The Crown Solicitor for the Commonwealth.

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

HENRY WHITE

THE KING

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

NEW SOUTH WALES. Criminal law-Misdemeanour at common law -Fraudulent attempt to have conviction

set e-Attempt to pervert course of justice-Uttering forged documents- Sending false petition to Governor-Attempt to procure inquiry under Crimes SYDNEY,

Act (N.S.W.), (No. 40 of 1900), sec. 475 - Demurrer-Several counts - Aug. 28, 29,

Information bad in part.

A solicitor, who had been struck off the rolls after conviction and sentence for stealing, was charged, after his release from imprisonment at the expira- tion of his sentence, upon an indictment containing three counts, which

4 CLR 153

alleged (1) that he afterwards unlawfully attempted, by the use of false H. C. OF A declarations, known by him to be false, to make it appear to the Chief Justice of the State that he was innocent, and had been wrongfully convicted and removed from the rolls, with intent to pervert the course of law and justice; (2) that he endeavoured by a false petition to the Governor to have his conviction setaside or reversed; and (3) that by means of the false declara- tions mentioned in the first count, which were alleged to be forged, he endeavoured to deceive the Chief Justice in the manner stated in the first

The prisoner was convicted on all counts and sentenced to a term of imprisonment upon each, the jury having found specially that the declarations mentioned in the first and third counts were forged by the prisoner.

Held, on demurrer, that the first count sufficiently disclosed an attempt to pervert the course of justice by sending to the Chief Justice a false petition on which he might have ordered a judicial inquiry into the question of the prisoner's guilt, under sec. 475 of the Crimes Act 1900;

That the second count was bad as it disclosed no offence; and That the third count was good, not only as disclosing an attempt to pervert the course of justice in the same manner as charged in the first count, but also as disclosing the uttering of a forgery.

Semble, that even if the first count did not sufficiently disclose…

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 White v The King

Details

AGLC: White v The King [1906] HCA 53
Case: [1906] HCA 53
Decision Date: 31 August 1906

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *White v The King* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant, Mr White, had been convicted in the Supreme Court on an indictment containing three counts alleging attempts to pervert the course of justice and the uttering of forged documents. Mr White had previously been convicted of stealing, struck off the roll of solicitors, and served his sentence. He subsequently submitted documents to the Chief Justice of New South Wales, which he alleged were false and forged, with the intention of having his conviction overturned and his name reinstated as a solicitor.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the indictment, as a whole and in each of its counts, disclosed criminal offences, and whether the trial judge had erred in overruling the appellant's demurrer to the indictment. Specifically, the court had to determine if the first count sufficiently alleged an attempt to pervert the course of justice by presenting false declarations to the Chief Justice, if the second count alleging a false petition to the Governor disclosed an offence, and if the third count sufficiently alleged the uttering of a forgery and an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

The High Court, in its reasoning, found that the first count sufficiently disclosed an attempt to pervert the course of justice by seeking to induce the Chief Justice to initiate an inquiry under section 475 of the *Crimes Act 1900* (NSW) into the appellant's guilt. The Court held that the second count was bad as it did not disclose an offence, as merely presenting a false petition without further elements did not constitute a criminal act at common law. However, the third count was deemed good, not only for disclosing an attempt to pervert the course of justice in a similar manner to the first count, but also for sufficiently alleging the offence of uttering a forgery. The Court noted that while the first and third counts related to the same act, this did not invalidate the convictions given the sentencing structure.

Consequently, the High Court varied the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The convictions on the first and third counts were affirmed, while the conviction on the second count was quashed. The overall sentence imposed on the appellant remained unchanged.

Orders