White v The King

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.