Cheers v Porter [1931] HCA 51

Cheers v Porter [1931] HCA 51

By a narrow majority, the High Court held that the evidence of a child of tender years, found to understand the duty to speak the truth but not the nature of an oath, was admissible under sec. 13 of the Oaths Act 1900 (N.S.W.) if the child is otherwise found intelligent. Therefore, the Magistrate did not err in accepting unsworn evidence from the child, and special leave to appeal was refused.

Parties
Applicant: William James Cheers; Respondent: Joseph Arthur Porter
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal (criminal) / High Court of Australia on Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Special leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Oaths and Affirmations, Competency of Child Witnesses, Summary Conviction Procedure
Criminal Law Evidence Oaths and Affirmations Competency of Child Witnesses Summary Conviction Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William James Cheers

Applicant

Joseph Arthur Porter

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Special Leave to Appeal (criminal) / High Court of Australia on Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a child of nine years without religious belief but found intelligent and understanding the duty to tell the truth may give evidence on declaration under sec. 13 of the Oaths Act 1900 (N.S.W.) in a criminal proceeding for larceny.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of corroboration affects the admissibility of such evidence.
  3. 3 Interpretation of sec. 13 of the Oaths Act 1900 (N.S.W.) in light of existing statutory and common law requirements.

Ratio Decidendi

By a narrow majority, the High Court held that the evidence of a child of tender years, found to understand the duty to speak the truth but not the nature of an oath, was admissible under sec. 13 of the Oaths Act 1900 (N.S.W.) if the child is otherwise found intelligent. Therefore, the Magistrate did not err in accepting unsworn evidence from the child, and special leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Special leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • No order as to costs