ON 14 APRIL 1954, the High Court of Australia delivered Scott v Numurkah Corporation [1954] HCA 14; (1954) 91 CLR 300 (14 April 1954).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/91clr300.html
1300 00 2088
Category Archives: Criminal Law
Kemp v R [1951] HCA 39
ON 17 JULY 1951, the High Court of Australia delivered Kemp v R [1951] HCA 39; (1951) 83 CLR 341 (17 July 1951).
The accused had been indicted on three counts of indecent assault and acquitted of two. A new trial was held for the third, resulting in conviction.
During the new trial, the complainant gave evidence of similar acts consisting of offences on two occasions prior to the third. The High Court held that the evidence was not admissible as it may have included the two counts of which the accused had been acquitted.
Accordingly, the court held that the conviction could not stand. Instead of ordering a new trial, the court ordered that the conviction be quashed as the accused had served nearly two years of the sentence.
1300 00 2088
Nuremberg Trials
ON 20 NOVEMBER 1945, the Nuremberg Trials began.
<p style=”text-align: center;”><a href=”http://legalhelpdesklawyers.com.au”><img class=”alignnone wp-image-8046″ src=”https://legalhelpdesklawyers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/button-logo-41.jpg?w=150″ alt=”Lawyers” width=”50″ height=”50″ /></a></p>
<p style=”text-align: center;”>1300 00 2088</p>
Woolmington v DPP [1935] UKHL 1
ON THIS DAY in 1935, the United Kingdom House of Lords delivered Woolmington v DPP [1935] UKHL 1 (23 May 1935).
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1935/1.html
The case is known for the following passage:
“Through-out the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt…. If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner, as to whether the prisoner killed the deceased with a malicious intention, the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained. When dealing with a murder case the Crown must prove (a) death as the result of a voluntary act of the accused and (b) malice of the accused. It may prove malice either expressly or by implication. For malice may be implied where death occurs as the result of a voluntary act of the accused which is (i) intentional and (ii) unprovoked. When evidence of death and malice has been given (this is a question for the jury) the accused is entitled to show by evidence or by examination of the circumstances adduced by the Crown that the act on his part which caused death was either unintentional or provoked. If the jury are either satisfied with his explanation or, upon a review of all the evidence, are left in reasonable doubt whether, even if his explanation be not accepted, the act was unintentional or provoked, the prisoner is entitled to be acquitted.”
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
1933 | Beer and Wine Revenue Act 1933
ON THIS DAY in 1933, US Congress passed the Beer and Wine Revenue Act 1933 which relaxed prohibition in the United States.
Peter O’Grady
Section 10 of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
ON 12 MARCH 1929, section 10 of the NSW Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (formerly known as section 556A of the Crimes Act 1900) was added to the Crimes Act 1900 through the passage of the Crimes (Amendment) Act 1929 No 2.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/num_act/ca1929n2189
As at 12 March 2015, s10 provides:
Dismissal of charges and conditional discharge of offender
10 Dismissal of charges and conditional discharge of offender
(1) Without proceeding to conviction, a court that finds a person guilty of an offence may make any one of the following orders:
(a) an order directing that the relevant charge be dismissed,
(b) an order discharging the person on condition that the person enter into a good behaviour bond for a term not exceeding 2 years,
(c) an order discharging the person on condition that the person enter into an agreement to participate in an intervention program and to comply with any intervention plan arising out of the program.
(2) An order referred to in subsection (1) (b) may be made if the court is satisfied:
(a) that it is inexpedient to inflict any punishment (other than nominal punishment) on the person, or
(b) that it is expedient to release the person on a good behaviour bond.
(2A) An order referred to in subsection (1) (c) may be made if the court is satisfied that it would reduce the likelihood of the person committing further offences by promoting the treatment or rehabilitation of the person.
(2B) Subsection (1) (c) is subject to Part 8C.
(3) In deciding whether to make an order referred to in subsection (1), the court is to have regard to the following factors:
(a) the person’s character, antecedents, age, health and mental condition,
(b) the trivial nature of the offence,
(c) the extenuating circumstances in which the offence was committed,
(d) any other matter that the court thinks proper to consider.
(4) An order under this section has the same effect as a conviction:
(a) for the purposes of any law with respect to the revesting or restoring of stolen property, and
(b) for the purpose of enabling a court to give directions for compensation under Part 4 of the Victims Compensation Act 1996 , and
(c) for the purpose of enabling a court to give orders with respect to the restitution or delivery of property or the payment of money in connection with the restitution or delivery of property.
(5) A person with respect to whom an order under this section is made has the same right to appeal on the ground that the person is not guilty of the offence as the person would have had if the person had been convicted of the offence.
1300 00 2088
Illinois v Leopold & Loeb
ON 10 SEPTEMBER 1924, Nathan Leopold Jr and Richard Loeb were sentenced to 99 years imprisonment after being convicted of attempting to kidnap and murder a 14 year old boy.
Click to access Leopold_Loeb_Sentencing.pdf
1300 00 2088
R v Smith (“Brides in the Bath case”) (1915) 11 CR App R 229
ON 13 AUGUST 1916, the Court of Criminal Appeal delivered R v Smith (1915) 11 Cr App R 229.
The defendant was accused of murdering his wife, Bessie Munday, who was found dead at home in her bath. Evidence of the death of two subsequent wives in similar circumstances was held to be admissible as it was improbable that three different women would have accidentally drowned in the bath given that their deaths occurred not long after entering marriage and financial arrangements under which which the accused would stand to benefit if they died.
Smith’s appeal was unsuccessful. He was convicted and hanged on 13 August 1916.
1300 00 2088
Fingerprint evidence | 23 May 1905
ON THIS DAY in 1905, Alfred and Albert Stratton were the first in Great Britain to be convicted for murder in a trial where fingerprint evidence was used.
http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t19050502-415&div=t19050502-415
1300 00 2088
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
ON 31 OCTOBER 1900, the NSW Crimes Act 1900 commenced.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 
