Griffith v R [1937] HCA 25; (1937) 58 CLR 185 (31 May 1937)

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Griffith Applicant ; and The King Respondent.

H C of A

On appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria.

31 May 1937

Latham C.J. , Rich, Dixon Evatt and McTiernan JJ.

Bourke, for the applicant.

Book K.C. and Joske, for the Crown, were not called upon.

The Court delivered the following judgment:—

May 31

Latham C.J. ,

Rich, Dixon Evatt and McTiernan JJ.

This is an application for special leave to appeal by a prisoner who has been convicted on two counts of an indictment for rape. The act of rape was clearly proved in each case. The defence was a defence of mistaken identity, and the principal question which has been argued, so far as this application is concerned, has been the question of the admissibility of certain evidence led by the Crown. That evidence was placed before the jury for the purpose of showing that the accused person had a system or plan, the object of which was to entice women to lonely places, the means adopted being the insertion of bogus advertisements in the press offering domestic employment or sending bogus answers to bona fide advertisements of that type. Letters were proved to have been written by the accused in different names, which were false; interviews took place as to suggested, but entirely fictitious, domestic employment. This alleged system was seen in operation in each of the cases the subject matter of the charges, and evidence was given as to quite a number of other occasions on which what the Crown calls this system had been used. A considerable number of letters from women applicants for employment were found in the possession of the prisoner when he was arrested or at his home. If the evidence were believed it was such as to produce a moral certainty of the guilt of the accused. The accused sought to explain his actions in relation to the advertisements, the correspondence and the interviews, by saying that he was acting for some other person whose name he did not know, of whose address he was uncertain, and whom he was unable to discover. Obviously it was a matter for the jury to say whether such a story as that should be believed. The court is of opinion that this evidence of a plan or system was relevant and admissible, and that the fact that some of the evidence related to the operation or exercise of such a plan or system after the date of the last offence with which the prisoner was charged does not make the evidence any the less admissible. See Martin v. Osborne[1]. Upon this view of this evidence, the criticism made of the identification of the accused by certain witnesses, in the opinion of the court, entirely loses its weight.

In this case the court is therefore of opinion that special leave should be refused.

Application for special leave to appeal refused.

Solicitor for the applicant, C. M. S. Power , Public Solicitor.

Solicitor for the respondent, F. G. Menzies , Crown Solicitor for Victoria.

[1] [1936] HCA 23; (1936) 55 C.L.R. 367.