Newell v R [1936] HCA 50

Newell v R [1936] HCA 50

The majority rule for criminal jury verdicts introduced by the Jury Act 1936 (Tas.) does not apply to trials where the accused had already been arraigned and pleaded prior to commencement of that Act; the right to a unanimous verdict was accrued and cannot be taken away except by clear words. Therefore, Newell could not be convicted except by a unanimous verdict.

Parties
Appellant: John Manly Newell; Respondent: The King
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal From Court of Criminal Appeal of Tasmania
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Court of Criminal Appeal of Tasmania reversed.
Legal Topics
Retrospective Operation of Statutes, Jury Verdict Requirements, Procedure – Criminal Trials

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Manly Newell

Appellant

The King

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal From Court of Criminal Appeal of Tasmania

  1. 1 Does the Jury Act 1936 (Tas.) apply retrospectively to trials already commenced before its operation, specifically allowing majority verdicts instead of unanimous ones?
  2. 2 Is the requirement for a unanimous verdict an inherent right or merely procedural?

Ratio Decidendi

The majority rule for criminal jury verdicts introduced by the Jury Act 1936 (Tas.) does not apply to trials where the accused had already been arraigned and pleaded prior to commencement of that Act; the right to a unanimous verdict was accrued and cannot be taken away except by clear words. Therefore, Newell could not be convicted except by a unanimous verdict.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Court of Criminal Appeal of Tasmania reversed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.