Cranssen v R
Judgement of the High Court of Australia / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Cranssen v R?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Cranssen v the King is a decision of the High Court of Australia.
Cranssen v The King | |
---|---|
Court | High Court of Australia |
Full case name | Cranssen v The King |
Decided | 1936 |
Citation(s) | 55 CLR 509 |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | Starke J, Dixon J, Evatt J, McTiernan J |
Case opinions | |
Starke J Dixon, Evatt, McTiernan JJ |
The case is notable for its statements of principle that apply to sentencing discretion in Australia. For this purpose, it was most recently cited by the High Court in 2011.[1] It is often cited alongside House v The King.[1]
At issue was an appeal of sentence by Fr Anthony Cranssen, a Dutch Catholic priest who was convicted of arson in the Territory of New Guinea. He had been sentenced to five years imprisonment and hard labour by the Supreme Court at Rabaul. Crassen had organised an armed group of Papuans, and instructed them to burn down huts belonging to Lutheran Papuans from outside the locality of his mission.[2]
The case was reported on by The Otago Daily Times.[3]