"no presentment" - Legal Term. What does it mean?

[rickeyh]

I am researching the Price family in Victoria and came across this newspaper article from the 24th July 1914

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/91575073

"Mr. S. Leon (Crown Prosecutor) made an announcement at the Sale Criminal Court to-day in connection with the case, the King v. David John Kelly. The body of Charles Price was found at
Scrubby Creek, near Omeo on Sunday, 14th April. There was a bullet wound in the body. At the inquest it was alleged that Kelly had threatened to "do for" his wife and Price if he caught them together.

A verdict was returned that death was the result of a gunshot wound, and Kelly was
committed for trial on a charge of murder. Mr. Leon stated that no presentment
would be filed against Kelly."

Can anyone tell me what this actually means? My thinking is that the Prosecution decided not to proceed with the case which is quite extraordinary considering the evidence.

Thanks

Rickey

[mckha489]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentment

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/presentment

I’m none the wiser though.

[majm]

presentment
A document listing the charges against an accused. It is given to the court to
begin a court case.


ADD

https://www.victorialawfoundation.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/Legal-glossary.pdf

No presentment ... NO document given to the court to begin that case, thus NO prosecution ...


JM

[rickeyh]

Thank you Mckha489 and JM. I can find no record of a subsequent court case so that makes sense. Interesting times when someone could be shot in the back and the perpetrator (alleged) was not brought to trial. ;-)

Rickey
 

[Jamjar]

However, JM, it states that he was committed for trial.

and Kelly was committed for trial on a charge of murder.

Jamjar

[majm]

Agree JJ but a No Presentation can be presented when the trial is about to commence...  so a person can be charged, a trial date set, and then even on the day, or during the course of the trial, the Prosecution can withdraw.  It is something that still happens even today, the police withdraw, and so the defendant is allowed to walk freely from the court.

Criminal law has a test ... beyond reasonable doubt ...versus Hearsay that can be heard at an inquest 


JM

[rickeyh]

I'm not so sure Jamjar. It is a little ambiguous. It says

"At the inquest it was alleged that Kelly had threatened to "do for" his wife and Price if he caught them together. A verdict was returned that death was the result of a gunshot wound, and Kelly was
committed for trial on a charge of murder. "

So this was at the inquest.

The newspaper article is quoting the Crown Prosecutor saying "that no presentment would be filed against Kelly."

So, following the inquest the Prosecutor decided that the trial would not proceed.

[Jamjar]

Kelly granted bail, last column: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article26120670

Jamjar

[majm]

I'm not so sure Jamjar. It is a little ambiguous. It says

"At the inquest it was alleged that Kelly had threatened to "do for" his wife and Price if he caught them together. A verdict was returned that death was the result of a gunshot wound, and Kelly was
committed for trial on a charge of murder. "

So this was at the inquest.

The newspaper article is quoting the Crown Prosecutor saying "that no presentment would be filed against Kelly."

So, following the inquest the Prosecutor decided that the trial would not proceed.

Some months after the inquest, the Crown Prosecutor (so the Police) advised the Criminal Court that they were NOT presenting a case for prosecuting the charge of murder against David John Kelly.

JM