| Cranssen v The King | |
| Court: | High Court of Australia |
| Date Decided: | 1936 |
| Full Name: | Cranssen v The King https://jade.io/article/63884 |
| Citations: | 55 CLR 509 |
| Judges: | Starke J, Dixon J, Evatt J, McTiernan J |
| Opinions: | Starke J Dixon, Evatt, McTiernan JJ |
Cranssen v the King is a decision of the High Court of Australia.
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.
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]
Anthony Cranssen was an ordained Catholic priest from Holland, who had been sent by the Society of the Divine Word to a mission at Alexishafen in the Territory of New Guinea. He remained there a few months and then was sent into an uncontrolled area of the Madang district. To obtain a permit to enter that area, he was required by the territory Administrator to be accompanied by ten men; four of whom had to be capable with firearms.[4]
He entered an area called Iwam along with two other missionaries and thirty coastal Papuan men. They established a station at a place called Guyebi. The Papuans in that area had never been contacted before by Europeans. Cranssen's fellow missionaries left the station within three months, and he remained there as the lone European from that point. He established various outstations nearby during this time.
After two years, in December 1934, another priest in charge of a mission station two hours distance from his location was killed by local Papuans. He embarked for that station, and there met other missionaries. They were all attacked at that time, but made their way back to safety. In January 1935 another missionary, a similar distance away, was shot and killed by arrows. He embarked for that location with a large number of Guyebi Papuans; however they returned to his residence before he did, broke into his house, and surrounded it for days while armed.
Due to these incidents the colonial administrator closed the Iwam area. Nevertheless, in June, a Lutheran missionary named Welsch obtained a permit to enter. He visited Crassen's outstations and left two or three Lutheran coastal Papuans at each location. This was against colonial administrator instructions that coastal Papuans had to be accompanied by a European when in that area. Huts were built for those Papuans, which they lived in for months.
In November 1935 Crassen was informed that the presence of the Lutheran Papuans was causing tension with Papuans nearby one of his outstations.[5] He then told one of them, at the outstation nearby Kekaru, that he had to leave the area; and he would be put in gaol if he remained. He saw an increasing amount of weapons being carried openly by local Papuans during this time. Crassen additionally claimed that two of the Lutheran Papuans had plotted with another local Papuan to make an attack while 'his natives' were at church. He first confirmed these reports, and then on the following Sunday took measures to get rid of two Lutheran Papuans at Keraku.Cranssen then sent six of his coastal Papuan men to Keraku with instructions to eject the two Lutherans from their huts, and burn them down. They took two rifles and two shotguns with them; and he instructed his men to use them against local Papuans if attacked, but not against the two Lutherans. The firearms weren't used. The huts were partially burned down, and the two Lutherans were assaulted and forcibly brought to Crassen.
He then commended the actions of his men and ordered the Lutherans to leave. They did so, and as a result of their report, Cranssen was called upon for an explanation by the colonial administrator. His explanation of the affair was delivered in broken English. He stated in effect that he had acted in self-defence; that the Lutheran mission had 'unwarrantably' come into his field of work and left men there without supervision. He said that his created a feeling of danger across the missions, and he would be attacked. He said it was necessary to burn down their huts otherwise they might return.[6]
Cranssen was then prosecuted for wilful and unlawful destruction of native dwellings. He was committed to trial, and at the Supreme Court at Rabaul; he was indicted for arson. He was advised by his solicitor to plead guilty and he did so. He later claimed before the High Court that he was unaware of what he was pleading guilty to, and that his solicitor had advised him that a guilty plea would only result in a fine of between five and ten pounds.
The Chief Justice David Wanliss took a 'most adverse view' of Cranssen's conduct and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment with hard labour. Wanliss J is reported to have called Cranssen during the trial 'a traitor to his church - a church that had spread Christianity to all parts of the earth', and said 'you are rendering the work of the Government more hard and more dangerous, and your conduct may be the cause of loss of life for years to come'.
Cranssen then sought leave to appeal at the High Court. He was represented by Eugene Gorman KC.
The majority re-iterated its contemporaneously recent comments in House v The King, that sentences will ordinarily not be interfered with; unless there is a reason to believe that the lower court improperly exercised its discretion. The improper inclusion or exclusion of relevant considerations, mistakes as to the facts, errors of law, or 'views or opinions which are extreme or misguided' were all cited as reasons to interfere. However the court said that it isn't 'necessary that some definite or specific error be assigned'. An obvious or manifest error would also suffice to justify an interference.[7]
The majority wrote:Writing specifically of Cranssen's appeal, the court wrote:[8] The majority affirmed Cranssen's guilty verdict, but substituted his five-year sentence for one of six months.[9]
Cranssen served his sentence at the Emu Plains prison farm in New South Wales. It is not known what happened of him upon release. Copies of court and administrative records relating to the trial, conviction and appeals are stored at the University of Queensland.[10]
The Cranssen incident appears to have been of minor interest to historians, with documents relating to the incident and the trial stored at the ANU and University of Queensland.[11]
Legally, Cranssen v R is often cited alongside House v R in appeals relating to the use of discretion in sentencing. As of October 2020 the case was most recently cited by the High Court in Lacey v Attorney-General,[12] and it is often cited in Australia's lower courts of appeal.[13] In Lacey it was cited for the propositions that there is no mandated deference by Courts of Appeal to a sentencing judge's advantage at trial;[14] and that for a superior court to interfere with a sentence, it isn't enough that they would have imposed one of a different length, rather there must be a reason to believe the discretion was improperly exercised.[15]
Nurton, 'Report of patrol to the Ramu River and across it, for the purpose of investigating a complaint of arson by the Lutheran Mission ...' (20.1.36 to 17.2.36), and attached statements regarding this investigation; Annual Report (Territory of New Guinea) 1935- 1936, para. 39, p.25. See also Rabaul Times (issues, 8.5.36 and 15.5.36) for details of Cranssen's trial in Rabaul