Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    Case The Crown v. Clarke

    Uploaded by

    ruiwen chen

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Case The Crown v. Clarke

    Uploaded by

    ruiwen chen
    19 views10 pages

    Original Title

    case the crown v. clarke

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    19 views10 pages

    Case The Crown v. Clarke

    Uploaded by

    ruiwen chen

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 10
    Ry Clarke [1927] HCA 47; (1927) 40 CLR 227 (22. November 1927), Page 1 of 10 io, (iol (tbs (Mand. (Sen acs) High Court of Australia Yow ae here: AustLll>>Databases>>Hid Cor of Ausla>>1927 >> [RTL ICA 47 (Database Seazch) [Name Seaich] [Recent Decisions} [Nosexn] (Dovwnlosl Help} R y Clarke [1927] HCA 47; (1927) 40 CLR 227 (22 November 1927) HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA ‘The Crown Respondent, Appellant and Evan Clake Petitioner, Respondent. HCofA (On appeal from the Supreme Cour of Westem Austra - 22 November 1927 Isaacs A.C. Higgins and Starke J. TVCr LAY ‘Walker forthe appellant 03 Aus 2017 rows Keenan K.C. and Ros, for the respondent. ‘Walker, n reply ‘The following writen judgments were delivered: Nov. 22 Issacs ACS. This san appeal from the judgment ofthe Full Court of Wester Australia, Bvan Clacke proceeded, by petition of right under the Crown Sults et 1898, to sue the Crown for £1,000 promised by proclamation for such information as should lead to the arrest and conviction ofthe person or persons who committed the murders of two police officers, Walsh and Pitman. The ‘defence was first a comprehensive denial of the petitioner’ allegation that on 10th Tune 1926 he “pave the sai information,” and next an afimative allegation that he made on that date a ‘confession but not withthe view of obtaining the reward, Th petitioner was thus puto the proof of his ease. Atte trial the Chief Justice gave judgment forthe Crown. Inthe Full Court, by & ‘majority the judgment of Millan C1, the tril Judge, was reversed, Inthe result, two leamed Judges though the Crown should succeed while two others thought Clarke should succeed. The ilference of opinion arose with respect to the effect o the accuracy, or bth, ofthe ease of Wiliams v. Carwardinel1} The fcts ofthis case, including inferences, are not, as [ understand, in dispute, They amount to this: The information for which Clarke claims the reward was given by him when he was under acest with 'Treffene ona charge of murder, and was given by him in eicumstances which show tp asi ed aulauleases/thyHCA/1927/47.ht 2677017 Ry Clarke [1927] HCA 41; (1927) 40 CLR 227 (22 November 1927) Page 2 of 10 ‘that in giving the information he was not ating on or in pursuance of or in reliance upon or ia return forthe consideration contained in the proclamation, but exclusively inorder to clear himself fom a false charge of murder. In other words, he was ating wih ference toa specific eriminal charge against himself, and not with reference to a general request bythe community for information against other persons. Is true that without his information and evidence 20 conviction was probable, but itis also abundantly clear that he was not acting forthe sake of justice or from any impulse of conscience or because he was asked to do so, but simply and solely ‘on his own initiative, to secure his own safety from the hand of the law and altogether irrespective of the proclamation. He has, in my opinion, nether aTeeal aoe a moral claim tothe eward. The eamed Chief Justice held that Clarke never acepted o intended to scoop the offer in the proclamation, and, unless the mere giving ofthe information without such intention amounted in lar to an acceptance ofthe offeror to performance ofthe condition, there was neither "acceptance nor “performance,” and therefore there was no contact Ido not understand ether of the leamed Judges who formed the majority to controvert this. But they held that Wilame v. Carwardine2) has stood so long that it should be regarded as accurate, and that, so regarded, it cnt the respondent to judgment. As eported inthe four places where itis found|.3} itis

    You might also like