R v Grills [1910] HCA 68

400 HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.

THE KING a ° : , . ' . APPE

AND

HENRY GRILLS 5 : 2 . REsPo}

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES.

H.C. or A, Oriminal Law—Statement made in presence of prisoner—Denial by 1910. Admissibility—Misdirection.

ee 'A prisoner was convicted of an unnatural offence upon a boy. Nov. 17, 30. Was given on behalf of the Crown by the arresting constable of a con sation between the constable, the boy, and the prisoner, before his arrest, ete which the boy, in answer to questions put to him, charged the prisoner wit ORE the commission of the offence, and the prisoner asserted his innocence,

evidence was not objected to. The boy subsequently gave inde

the boy. In his summing-up the Judge directed the jury that the eviden of the boy if true proved that an assault had been committed upon him | the prisoner ; that the prisoner in his statement to the jury, and al his statement to the constable denied the charge; and that unless

of his guilt.

Held, that evidence of the statements made in the prisoner's presence properly admitted, .

was sufficient, and that the conviction should be sustained.

11 CLR] OF AUSTRALIA.

Per Griffith C. made in the presence of the accused, whether in the course of conversation or

not, if the circumstances of the case suggest a danger that the jury may regard the statement as independent evidence of the facts alleged in it, the jury should be cautioned against giving it any such effect. Otherwise such a caution is unnecessary, and need not be given.

Per O'Gonnor J.—In criminal cases objection may be taken by the prisoner at any time before sentence to a misdirection or non-direction of the Judge at the trial, although no exception was taken to the direction during the course of the trial.

R. vy. Gibson, 18 Q.B.D., 537, and R. v. Norton, (1910) 2 K.B., 496, con- sidered.