Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-31T01:38:11.999Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trade Practices and Consumers: The Plea Non Vult Contendere Cum Domina Regina Et Posuit Se in Gratiam Curiae

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

J. R. O'Brien
J. R. O'Brien*
Affiliation:
Western Mining Corporation
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When a defendant is asked to plead to a criminal charge, he is not restricted to the pleas of guilty and not guilty. Other pleas well known to lawyers include autrefois acquit and the plea to the jurisdiction. Some older pleas such as benefit of clergy have been abolished.

The plea of non vult contendere cum domina Regina et posuit se in gratiam curiae is unfamiliar to Australian lawyers. The last reported use of the plea in England was in 1702 in The Queen v. Telnpleman. The report of this case is unfortunately brief:

After pleading guilty to an indictment, the defendant may give evidence that justifies the fact in mitigation oj punishment—S.C. 3 Danv. 253. S.C. 1 Salk. 55.

After pleading guilty to an indictment, you may give anything in evidence that justifies the fact, or proves him not guilty of the fact; for the entry is non vult contendere cum dominâ Reginâ, sed ponit se in gratiam Curiae. And it is not like the case where one is found guilty by verdict.

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , March 1972 , pp. 125 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © 1972 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Literally: “I do not wish to contend with the Crown, but place myself on the mercy of the court.”

2 10 Halsb. (3rd ed.) 404.

3 The history of the plea is traced in Orfield, L. B., Criminal Procedure from Arrest to Appeal (1947) 292-293Google Scholar; Lenvin, N. B. and Meyers, E. S., “Nolo Contendere; Its Nature and Implications” (1942) 51 Yale L.J. 1255CrossRefGoogle Scholar; case note, (1934) 48 Harv. L. Rev. 128. Some early references are collected in Hudson v. U.S. (1926) 272 U.S. 451; 71 L. ed. 347; 47 S. Ct 127. [Research in this matter has been limited to University and Supreme Court libraries in South and iWestern Australia; a better equipped practitioner may have information on a rnore recent use of the plea before an English court.]

4 0702) 7 Mod. 40, 87 E.R. 1081; (1702) 1 Salk. 55, 91 E.R. 54.

5 Y.B. Hil. 9 Hen. VI, 60. This translation is taken from Hudson v. U.S. (1926) 272 U.S. 451, at n. 3.

6 Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown Vol. II, 333. The plea is also mentioned as being available in Chitty, .J., A Practical Treatise on the Criminal Law (1816) 431Google Scholar.

7 American usage has developed the incidents of the plea at the same time - as it has clarified them. It is difficult to distinguish the one process from the other.

8 Chitty, loc. cit.; Twin Ports Oil Co. v. Pure Oil Co. (1939) 26 F. Supp-. 366;City of Burbank V. General Electric Co. (1964) 329 F. 2d 825; U.S. v. Jones (1954) 119 F. Supp. 288;U.S. v. Wolfson (1971) 52 F.R.D. 170;Piassick v. U.S. (1958) 253 F. 2d 658.

9 People v. Daiboch ( 1934) 265 N.Y. 125; 191 N.E. 859; U.S. ex rel Clark .:v. Skeen ( 1954) 126 F. Supp. 24.

10 Hudson v. U.S. (supra); U.S. ex rel Clark v. Skeen (supra); Twin Ports Oil Co. v. Pure Oil Co. (supra); and see also the authorities collected in K. A. Drechsler's annotation on the plea of nolo contendere in (1944) 152 American Law Reports, Annotated 253-296.

11 See e.g., Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1971 (Cth) ss 101, 137.

12 See Drechsler, op. cit. 256-257; U.S. v. American Bakeries Co. (1968)284 F. Supp. 864.

13 U.S. v. Standard Ultramarine and Color Co. (1955) 137 F. Supp. 167.

14 City of Burbank v. General Electric Co. (supra); Drechsler, op. cit. 267.

15 (1955) 137 F. Supp. 167.

16 Clayton Act, s. 5 (15 U.S.C.A.§ 16); c.f., Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1971 (Cth) ss 101, 137.

17 City of Burbank v. General Electric Co. (supra).

18 See case note in ( 1952) 65 Harv. L. Rev. 1400; and N. B. Lenvin and Meyers, E. S., “Nolo Contendere; Its Nature and Implications” (1942) 51 Yale L.I. 1255Google Scholar.

19 (1955) 137 F. Supp. 167, 171.

20 See also U.S. v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. (1938) 23 F. Supp. 531.

21 C.f., U.S. v. Safeway Stores Inc., text to n. 26 infra.

22 See e.g., U.S. v.Chin Doong Art (1961) 193 F. Supp. 820; U.S. v.Faucette (1963) 223 F. Supp. 199.

23 Drechsler, op cit. 282.

24 (1955) 137 F. Supp. 167, 171.

25 (1954) 119 F. Supp. 288.

26 (1957) 20 F.R.D. 451.

27 Many cases have been collected in the Modern Federal Practice Diges (1966) Vol. 16 and 1971 supplement. West Key Number system, title: Crimin' Law 275.

28 U.S. v. Rodgers (1968) 288 F. Supp. 57.

29 Kramer v. U.S. (1948) 166 F. 2d 515.

30 U.S. v. Bradford (1947) 160 F. 2d 729.

31 Harris v. U.S. (1951) 190 F. 2d 503.

32 Klingstein v. U.S. (1954) 217 F. 2d 711.

33 U.S. v. Westernn Chemical and Mftg Co. (1948) 78 F. Supp. 983.

34 U.S. v. Lair (1912) 195 F. 47.

35 Dillon v. U.S. (1940) 113 F. 2d 334.

36 Farnsworth v. Sanford (1940) 33 F. Supp. 400. For other examples see Drechsler, 152 A.L.R. 253, 265-266.

37 (1912) 196 F. 260; 116 C.C.A. 62; 41 L.R.A. (N.S.) 70.

38 (1926) 272 U.S. 451; 71 L. ed. 347; 47 S. Ct 127.

39 Drechsler, op. cit. 295.

40 U.S. v. Jones (1954) 119 F. Supp. 288.

41 (1955) 137 F. Supp. 167, 169.

42 See the discussion in U.S. v. Jones (1954) 119 F. Supp. 288, 290.

43 (1961) 193 F. Supp. 820.

44 Ashford v. Thornton (1818) 1 B. & Ald. 405, 106 E.R. 149; see also R. E.Megarry, Miscellany-at-law (2nd ed., 1958) 191.

45 E.g., Criminal Code 1970 (W.A.) s. 616; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935-1966 (S.A.) ss 284,285; see also Crimes Act 1961 (N.Z.) s. 357.

46 The provisions relating to findings in contempt proceedings are substantially the same as the provisions of the earlier Trade Practices Act 1965-1971 (Cth). The extent of the private right is critically examined in G. Walker, Australian Monopoly Law (1967) 303.

47 Ss 101, 137; see also Trade Practices Act 1965-1971 ss 90, 90ZI.

48 Although the Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906-1950 (Cth) bys. 11 provided for a civil remedy to recover triple damages, no evidentiary aid was given to the plaintiff. See also Meyer Heine Pty Ltd v. China Navigation Co. Ltd (1966) 39 A.L.J.R. 448.

49 The evidentiary aid is mentioned in Walker, loc. cit., and ia G. G. Masterman and E. Solomon, Australian Trade Practices Law ( 1967) 335; but its value is not discussed in either text.

50 However, a plea of guilty does not necessarily constitute an admission of the facts in the depositions; see The Queen v. Riley [1896] 1 Q.B.D. 309, 318.

51 E.g., s. 6 of the Pollution of Sea by Oil Act 1960-1965 (Cth).