Stokes v The Queen [1960] HCA 95

Stokes v The Queen [1960] HCA 95

Although there were matters of concern in the conduct of the trial, including the summary rejection of prima facie admissible cross-examination and an erroneous comment in the charge, the evidence that the complainant did not consent and that the applicants knew it was so strong that no other verdict could reasonably be expected; the convictions therefore stood. The sentences could not stand because three years imprisonment exceeded the two-year imprisonment alternative available where the offence attracted penal servitude for five years, and in any event was too long, so the sentences were reduced to eighteen months each.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Application / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Convictions and Sentences, Treated as the Hearing of the Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; application treated as the hearing of the appeal; appeal against convictions dismissed; appeal against sentences allowed; sentences reduced to eighteen months imprisonment.
Legal Topics
['indecent Assault' 'consent' 'mistaken Belief as to Age' 'cross Examination' 'jury Directions' 'appeal Against Conviction' 'appeal Against Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence' 'sentencing'] ['indecent Assault' 'consent' 'mistaken Belief as to Age' 'cross Examination' 'jury Directions' 'appeal Against Conviction' 'appeal Against Sentence']

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

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Application / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Convictions and Sentences, Treated as the Hearing of the Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge wrongly disallowed cross-examination of the complainant about prior matters involving indecency.' 'Whether the trial judge wrongly refused further cross-examination of the medical witness after questions from the judge following re-examination.' "Whether the charge to the jury adequately presented the applicants' defence and whether a comment about the applicants' belief as to the complainant's age was erroneous." 'Whether any trial errors could reasonably be supposed to have influenced the verdicts.' 'Whether the sentences of three years imprisonment were legally authorised and appropriate.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although there were matters of concern in the conduct of the trial, including the summary rejection of prima facie admissible cross-examination and an erroneous comment in the charge, the evidence that the complainant did not consent and that the applicants knew it was so strong that no other verdict could reasonably be expected; the convictions therefore stood. The sentences could not stand because three years imprisonment exceeded the two-year imprisonment alternative available where the offence attracted penal servitude for five years, and in any event was too long, so the sentences were reduced to eighteen months each.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; application treated as the hearing of the appeal; appeal against convictions dismissed; appeal against sentences allowed; sentences reduced to eighteen months imprisonment.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Hearing of the application to be treated as the hearing of the appeal.' 'Appeal so far as it relates to convictions dismissed.' 'Appeal so far as it relates to sentences allowed.' 'Sentences reduced to eighteen months imprisonment.']