Evening News, Mon 17 Nov 1924 1
“AUTREFOIS ACQUIT”
————
A PLEA SUCCEEDS
————
When Charles Albert Buckingham, 43, gardener, was charged at the Darlinghurst Sessions to-day with assault, he contended that he had been previously charged with the same offence and acquitted.
Mr O’Reilly, who appeared for the defence, said that Buckingham was originally charged at the North Sydney Police Court with offensive behaviour. The magistrate discharged him on that charge, but committed him for trial on a charge of assault based on the same facts.
Mr O’Reilly contended that the plea of autrefois acquit should be upheld, as Buckingham could not be charged with assault heard on the same facts which had been the subject of the offensive behaviour charge on which he was acquitted.
The Solicitor-General, who appeared for the Crown, contended that the test was whether Buckingham had ever been in jeopardy upon the charge of assault. As he could have been convicted of assault upon the previous information, the Crown was entitled to a verdict on the plea.
A jury was empanelled to try the issue, and after argument was directed by Judge Scholes that the plea of autrefois acquit was a good one, and consequently Buckingham could not be tried on the charge of assault.
The Solicitor-General pointed out that under the provisions of the new Crimes Act an appeal was open to the Crown. He asked his Honor to discharge Buckingham on bail, pending a decision being reached as to further action.
Buckingham was bound over in his own recognizance of £50 to appear for trial if called upon at any time within three months.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Daily Telegraph, Tue 18 Nov 1924 2
CRIMINAL.
————
(Before Judge Scholes.)
Crown Prosecutor, Mr CE Weigall,
Solicitor-General.
PLEA FOR AUTREFOIS ACQUIT.
Charles Albert Buckingham was charged in No 1 Court of the Quarter Sessions with committing an indecent assault at Mosman on October 6.
Buckingham pleaded that he had been previously charged with the same offence, and was acquitted.
Mr H de B O’Reilly, who (instructed by Messrs WA Gilder, McMaster, Holland and Gilder), appeared for the defence, said that accused was originally charged at the North Sydney Police Court with offensive behaviour. The Magistrate acquitted him on the charge, and sent him along for trial on a charge of assault, based on the same facts. Counsel contended that the plea of autrefois acquit should be upheld, and that Buckingham could not be charged with assault, based on the same set of facts which had been relied upon in the charge of offensive behaviour, on which he was acquitted.
The Solicitor-General submitted that the test was whether Buckingham had ever been in jeopardy upon the charge of assault. As he could have been been [sic] convicted of assault upon the previous information, the Crown was entitled to a verdict on the plea.
The jury was directed by his Honor that the plea of autrefois acquit was a good one, and therefore Buckingham could not be tried on the charge of assault.
The Solicitor-General pointed out that under the provisions of the new Crimes Act an appeal was open to the Crown. He asked his Honor to discharge accused on bail, pending a decision being arrived at with regard to future action.
Buckingham was then bound over in his own recognisance of £50 to appear for trial if called upon within three months.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 18 Nov 1924 3
QUARTER SESSIONS.
No. 1 COURT.
(Before Judge Scholes.)
Crown Prosecutor, Mr CE Weigall (Solicitor-General.)
AUTREFOIS ACQUIT.
Charles Albert Buckingham, [43], was charged with having committed an indecent assault upon a male person, [Brendan Newson, 13 years], at Mosman, on October 6.
Accused pleaded that he had been previously charged with the same offence, and had been acquitted.
Mr H de B O’Reilly, who (instructed by Messrs WA Gilder, McMaster, Holland, and Gilder) appeared for the accused, said that Buckingham was originally charged at the North Sydney Police Court with offensive behaviour, and the magistrate acquitted him on the charge and committed him for trial on a charge of assault, which was based on the same facts. Counsel contended that the plea of autrefois acquit should be upheld, and that accused could not be charged with assault based upon the same set of facts, which had been relied on in the charge of offensive behaviour upon which he was acquitted.
The Crown Prosecutor submitted that the test was whether Buckingham had ever been in jeopardy upon the charge of assault. As he could have been convicted of assault upon the previous information, the Crown was entitled to a verdict on the plea.
His Honor directed the jury, which had been empanelled, that the plea of autrefois acquit was a good one, and therefore Buckingham could not be tried on the charge of assault.
The Crown Prosecutor pointed out that under the provisions of the new Crimes Act an appeal was open to the Crown. He, therefore, requested his Honor to discharge accused on bail, pending a decision being arrived at with regard to future action.
Buckingham was bound over in his own recognisance in £50 to appear for trial if called upon within three months.
1 Evening News, (Sydney, NSW), Mon 17 Nov 1924, p. 8.
2 The Daily Telegraph, Tue 18 Nov 1924, p. 9.
3 The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 18 Nov 1924, p. 6.