Sparre v R [1942] HCA 19

Sparre v R [1942] HCA 19

When the jury cannot agree as to whether the accused had reasonable cause to believe the girl was over the prescribed age, it is not a finding against the accused; the trial fails and no verdict should be entered. It is error for a judge to direct a verdict of guilty in such circumstances.

Parties
Appellant: Patrick Holger Sparre; Respondent: The King
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal From Conviction on Indictment Before Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Unlawful Carnal Knowledge, Reasonable Cause to Believe Age, Jury Verdicts, Power to Order New Trial

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Holger Sparre

Appellant

The King

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court Appeal From Conviction on Indictment Before Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

  1. 1 Whether the question of reasonable cause to believe the girl was over sixteen is for the jury
  2. 2 Whether a judge can direct a verdict of guilty when the jury disagrees on essential facts
  3. 3 Whether failure of the jury to agree on a defence means the accused has not proved the defence

Ratio Decidendi

When the jury cannot agree as to whether the accused had reasonable cause to believe the girl was over the prescribed age, it is not a finding against the accused; the trial fails and no verdict should be entered. It is error for a judge to direct a verdict of guilty in such circumstances.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • verdict set aside and conviction quashed
  • new trial ordered before the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory