Jump to content

House v The King: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
fix
 
(27 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Australian High Court Judgment}}
⚫
{{Infobox court case|name=House v The King|court=[[High Court of Australia]]|image=Coat of Arms of Australia.svg|date decided=1936|full name=House v The King [https://jade.io/article/63882]|citations=55 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 499|judges=Starke J, Dixon J, Evatt J, McTiernan J|opinions=Starke J <br/><br/> Dixon, Evatt, McTiernan JJ}}'''House v. The King''' is a decision of the High Court of Australia.
{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2022}}
⚫
{{Infobox court case|name=House v The King|court=[[High Court of Australia]]|image=Coat of Arms of Australia.svg|date decided=1936|full name=House v The King [https://jade.io/article/63882]|citations=55 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 499|judges=Starke J, Dixon J, Evatt J, McTiernan J|opinions=Starke J <br /><br /> Dixon, Evatt, McTiernan JJ}}'''''House v The King''''' is a decision of the [[High Court of Australia]].


The case is notable as a statement of principle for sentencing discretion in Australian Criminal Law. Its judgement is also relevant to other appeals of discretion. Specifically, the case elaborates upon five types of errors that may lead to an appellate court exercising its own sentencing discretion in substitution for that of the sentencing judge.
The case is notable as a statement of principle for [[Sentence (law)|sentencing]] discretion in [[Australian criminal law|Australian Criminal Law]]. Specifically, the case elaborates upon five types of errors that may lead to an [[appellate court]] exercising its own sentencing discretion in substitution for that of the sentencing judge. While House was a criminal case, its statement of principle regarding appeals of discretion is relevant to all areas of law.<ref>''Markarian v The Queen'' (2005) 228 CLR 357 at [25]</ref>


''House v The King'' has the second highest number of citations among High Court cases.{{refn|group=note|LawCite citation statistics track the written judgments of courts, journal articles, and tribunals. (both in Australia and overseas)<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=&party1=&party2=&court=High%2BCourt%2Bof%2BAustralia&juris=&article=&author=&year1=&year2=&synonyms=on&filter=on&cases-cited=&legis-cited=&section=&large-search-ok=1&sort-order=cited|title=LawCite search|via=austlii.edu.au}}</ref>}}<ref group=note>Data is as of July 2023</ref>
House v The King has been cited the most times in judgements of all High Court cases.<ref name=":0">Citation statistics are visible at the Jade.io link: [https://jade.io/search/_rs0_.1.7cn.7.5.7jsd.7.8.7p.7.5.1.7criteriaGroups.7.5.3.1.7cn.7.5.7ovcg.7.8.7p.7.5.1.7criteria.7.5.3.1.7cn.7.5.7ovc.7.8.7p.7.5.1.7displayText.7.5.7HCA.7.8.7forAlerts.7.5true.8.7id.7.5.75.7.8.7overviewAcronym.7.5.7HCA.7.2.2.4.2.2.8.1.7cn.7.5.7edcg.7.8.7p.7.5.1.7criteria.7.5.3.1.7cn.7.5.7edsc.7.8.7p.7.5.1.2.2.4.2.2.4.8.7orderGroups.7.5.3.1.7cn.7.5.7og1.7.8.7p.7.5.1.7criteria.7.5.3.1.7cn.7.5.7oicco.7.8.7p.7.5.1.7direction.7.5.7DESCENDING.7.2.2.4.2.2.4.8.7resultsPerPage.7.520.2.2 here]</ref>


== Facts ==
== Facts ==
Everard Henry House, a bankrupt, was ordered to apply for his discharge by a bankruptcy court. When the application was heard by the court, he was charged with offenses under the ''Bankruptcy Act'' 1924. The court had found that six months prior to House's petition in bankruptcy he had pawned unpaid property obtained on credit.
Everard Henry House, a [[Bankruptcy|bankrupt]], was ordered to apply for his discharge by the [[Federal Court of Bankruptcy]]. When the application was heard by the court, he was charged with offenses under the ''Bankruptcy Act'' 1924. The court had found that six months prior to House's petition in bankruptcy he had [[Pawnbroker|pawned]] unpaid property obtained on credit.


The presiding judge [[Lionel Lukin (judge)|Lukin J]] sentenced House to three months imprisonment with hard labour''.'' House sought appeal to the High Court on the ground that the sentence was excessive.<ref>House v The King, 55 CLR 500</ref>
The presiding judge [[Lionel Lukin (judge)|Lukin J]] sentenced House to three months imprisonment with hard labour''.'' House sought appeal to the High Court on the ground that the sentence was excessive.<ref>House v The King, 55 CLR 500</ref>


== Judgement ==
== Judgment ==
The majority judgement of Dixon, Evatt, and McTiernan JJ began with a brief recitation of the facts. They then stated the legal principle that belies appeals of sentence in Australia, writing:<blockquote>'... the judgment complained of, namely, sentence to a term of imprisonment, depends upon the exercise of a judicial discretion by the court imposing it.  The manner in which an appeal against an exercise of discretion should be determined is governed by established principles. It is not enough that the judges composing the appellate court consider that, if they had been in the position of the primary judge, they would have taken a different course.  
The majority judgment of Dixon, Evatt, and McTiernan JJ began with a brief recitation of the facts. They then stated legal principle regarding appeals of sentences writing:{{blockquote|'... the judgment complained of, namely, sentence to a term of imprisonment, depends upon the exercise of a judicial discretion by the court imposing it. The manner in which an appeal against an exercise of discretion should be determined is governed by established principles. It is not enough that the judges composing the appellate court consider that, if they had been in the position of the primary judge, they would have taken a different course.  


It must appear that some error has been made in exercising the discretion. If the judge acts upon a wrong principle, if he allows extraneous or irrelevant matters to guide or affect him, if he mistakes the facts, if he does not take into account some material consideration, then his determination should be reviewed and the appellate court may exercise its own discretion in substitution for his if it has the materials for doing so.
It must appear that some error has been made in exercising the discretion. If the judge acts upon a wrong principle, if he allows extraneous or irrelevant matters to guide or affect him, if he mistakes the facts, if he does not take into account some material consideration, then his determination should be reviewed and the appellate court may exercise its own discretion in substitution for his if it has the materials for doing so.


It may not appear how the primary judge has reached the result embodied in his order, but, if upon the facts it is unreasonable or plainly unjust, the appellate court may infer that in some way there has been a failure properly to exercise the discretion which the law reposes in the court of first instance. In such a case, although the nature of the error may not be discoverable, the exercise of the discretion is reviewed on the ground that a substantial wrong has in fact occurred.' <ref name=":1">House v The King, 55 CLR 505</ref></blockquote>Applying this statement of principle, the majority declined to interfere with the sentence imposed upon Mr House. His appeal was therefore dismissed.<ref name=":1" /> This statement of legal principle is the most cited passage of the High Court in its history.<ref name=":0" />
It may not appear how the primary judge has reached the result embodied in his order, but, if upon the facts it is unreasonable or plainly unjust, the appellate court may infer that in some way there has been a failure properly to exercise the discretion which the law reposes in the court of first instance. In such a case, although the nature of the error may not be discoverable, the exercise of the discretion is reviewed on the ground that a substantial wrong has in fact occurred.' <ref name=":1">House v The King, 55 CLR 505</ref>}}Applying this statement of principle, the majority declined to interfere with the sentence imposed upon Mr House. His appeal was therefore dismissed.<ref name=":1" /> This statement of legal principle is the most cited passage of the High Court in its history.<ref name=":0">{{cite web|url=https://jade.io/search/_rs0_.1.7cn.7.5.7jsd.7.8.7p.7.5.1.7criteriaGroups.7.5.3.1.7cn.7.5.7ovcg.7.8.7p.7.5.1.7criteria.7.5.3.1.7cn.7.5.7ovc.7.8.7p.7.5.1.7displayText.7.5.7HCA.7.8.7forAlerts.7.5true.8.7id.7.5.75.7.8.7overviewAcronym.7.5.7HCA.7.2.2.4.2.2.8.1.7cn.7.5.7edcg.7.8.7p.7.5.1.7criteria.7.5.3.1.7cn.7.5.7edsc.7.8.7p.7.5.1.2.2.4.2.2.4.8.7orderGroups.7.5.3.1.7cn.7.5.7og1.7.8.7p.7.5.1.7criteria.7.5.3.1.7cn.7.5.7oicco.7.8.7p.7.5.1.7direction.7.5.7DESCENDING.7.2.2.4.2.2.4.8.7resultsPerPage.7.520.2.2|title=Jade search|publisher=BarNet}}</ref>


== Significance ==
== Significance ==
The joint majority judgement gave rise to what is sometimes referred to as the 'House errors'. Those errors are still used to determine whether appellate courts ought interfere with lower court sentencing.
The joint majority judgment gave rise to what is sometimes referred to as the 'House errors'. Those errors are still used to determine whether appellate courts ought interfere with lower court sentencing.


Briefly stated, the five errors derived from the judgement are whether the lower court judge:<ref>https://chrisnowlan.com/house.pdf</ref>
Briefly stated, the five errors derived from the judgment are whether the lower court judge:<ref>{{cite web|url=https://chrisnowlan.com/house.pdf|title=House v The King|website= chrisnowlan.com}}</ref>


# Acted on a wrong principle
# Acted on a wrong principle
Line 28: Line 30:
# Imposed a sentence manifestly unreasonable, or plainly unjust
# Imposed a sentence manifestly unreasonable, or plainly unjust


The law regarding interference of lower court sentences, has developed additional complexities since House v The King.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Appeals|url=https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/sentencing/appeals.html|access-date=2020-09-20|website=www.judcom.nsw.gov.au}}</ref>
The law regarding appeals of sentences has developed in complexity since ''House v. The King''.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Appeals|url=https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/sentencing/appeals.html|access-date=2020-09-20|website=www.judcom.nsw.gov.au}}</ref>


The majority's statement of principle is not limited to criminal appeals, but applies to any appeal calling for a review of discretion.<ref>https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/2501189/Edmonds-412-Advance.pdf</ref> E.g. discretion exercised by [[Public servant|public servants]] is reviewable on House grounds (excluding any effect of [[Privative clause|privative clauses]]).<ref>{{Cite web|last=Greenwood|first=Justice|date=2017-04-27|title=Judicial review of the exercise of discretionary public power|url=https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/digital-law-library/judges-speeches/justice-greenwood/20170427|access-date=2020-09-20|website=www.fedcourt.gov.au|language=en-US}}</ref>
The majority's statement of principle is not limited to criminal appeals, but applies to any appeal calling for a review of discretion.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/2501189/Edmonds-412-Advance.pdf|title=APPEALS FROM DISCRETIONS, SATISFACTIONS AND VALUE JUDGMENTS: REVIEWING THE HOUSE RULES|author=Chris Edmonds|publisher=Melbourne Law School}}</ref> E.g. discretion exercised by [[public servant]]s is reviewable on House grounds (excluding any effect of [[privative clause]]s).<ref>{{Cite web|last=Greenwood|first=Justice|date=2017-04-27|title=Judicial review of the exercise of discretionary public power|url=https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/digital-law-library/judges-speeches/justice-greenwood/20170427|access-date=2020-09-20|website=www.fedcourt.gov.au|language=en-US}}</ref>

== See also ==

* [[Federal Court of Bankruptcy]]
*''[[Cranssen v R]]''

== Notes ==
{{reflist|group=note}}


== References ==
== References ==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:1936 in case law]]
[[Category:1936 in Australian law]]
[[Category:Sentencing (law)]]
[[Category:High Court of Australia cases]]

Latest revision as of 10:04, 10 July 2023

House v The King
CourtHigh Court of Australia
Full case name House v The King [1]
Decided1936
Citation55 CLR 499
Court membership
Judges sittingStarke J, Dixon J, Evatt J, McTiernan J
Case opinions
Starke J

Dixon, Evatt, McTiernan JJ

House v The King is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

The case is notable as a statement of principle for sentencing discretion in Australian Criminal Law. Specifically, the case elaborates upon five types of errors that may lead to an appellate court exercising its own sentencing discretion in substitution for that of the sentencing judge. While House was a criminal case, its statement of principle regarding appeals of discretion is relevant to all areas of law.[1]

House v The King has the second highest number of citations among High Court cases.[note 1][note 2]

Facts

[edit]

Everard Henry House, a bankrupt, was ordered to apply for his discharge by the Federal Court of Bankruptcy. When the application was heard by the court, he was charged with offenses under the Bankruptcy Act 1924. The court had found that six months prior to House's petition in bankruptcy he had pawned unpaid property obtained on credit.

The presiding judge Lukin J sentenced House to three months imprisonment with hard labour. House sought appeal to the High Court on the ground that the sentence was excessive.[3]

Judgment

[edit]

The majority judgment of Dixon, Evatt, and McTiernan JJ began with a brief recitation of the facts. They then stated legal principle regarding appeals of sentences writing:

'... the judgment complained of, namely, sentence to a term of imprisonment, depends upon the exercise of a judicial discretion by the court imposing it. The manner in which an appeal against an exercise of discretion should be determined is governed by established principles. It is not enough that the judges composing the appellate court consider that, if they had been in the position of the primary judge, they would have taken a different course.  

It must appear that some error has been made in exercising the discretion. If the judge acts upon a wrong principle, if he allows extraneous or irrelevant matters to guide or affect him, if he mistakes the facts, if he does not take into account some material consideration, then his determination should be reviewed and the appellate court may exercise its own discretion in substitution for his if it has the materials for doing so.

It may not appear how the primary judge has reached the result embodied in his order, but, if upon the facts it is unreasonable or plainly unjust, the appellate court may infer that in some way there has been a failure properly to exercise the discretion which the law reposes in the court of first instance. In such a case, although the nature of the error may not be discoverable, the exercise of the discretion is reviewed on the ground that a substantial wrong has in fact occurred.' [4]

Applying this statement of principle, the majority declined to interfere with the sentence imposed upon Mr House. His appeal was therefore dismissed.[4] This statement of legal principle is the most cited passage of the High Court in its history.[5]

Significance

[edit]

The joint majority judgment gave rise to what is sometimes referred to as the 'House errors'. Those errors are still used to determine whether appellate courts ought interfere with lower court sentencing.

Briefly stated, the five errors derived from the judgment are whether the lower court judge:[6]

  1. Acted on a wrong principle
  2. Was guided by extraneous or irrelevant facts
  3. Mistook the facts
  4. Failed to take into account a material consideration
  5. Imposed a sentence manifestly unreasonable, or plainly unjust

The law regarding appeals of sentences has developed in complexity since House v. The King.[7]

The majority's statement of principle is not limited to criminal appeals, but applies to any appeal calling for a review of discretion.[8] E.g. discretion exercised by public servants is reviewable on House grounds (excluding any effect of privative clauses).[9]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ LawCite citation statistics track the written judgments of courts, journal articles, and tribunals. (both in Australia and overseas)[2]
  2. ^ Data is as of July 2023

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 at [25]
  2. ^ "LawCite search" – via austlii.edu.au.
  3. ^ House v The King, 55 CLR 500
  4. ^ a b House v The King, 55 CLR 505
  5. ^ "Jade search". BarNet.
  6. ^ "House v The King" (PDF). chrisnowlan.com.
  7. ^ "Appeals". www.judcom.nsw.gov.au. Retrieved 20 September 2020.
  8. ^ Chris Edmonds. "APPEALS FROM DISCRETIONS, SATISFACTIONS AND VALUE JUDGMENTS: REVIEWING THE HOUSE RULES" (PDF). Melbourne Law School.
  9. ^ Greenwood, Justice (27 April 2017). "Judicial review of the exercise of discretionary public power". www.fedcourt.gov.au. Retrieved 20 September 2020.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=House_v_The_King&oldid=1164660430"