Broome v Chenoweth

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria concerning a prosecution under section 221C of the *Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1945*. The appellant, Alfred Broome, an onion farmer, was charged with failing to make income tax deductions when paying an employee, Healy, for work performed. Healy was paid on a piece-work basis of 2s. per bag of onions picked and bagged, and was not obliged to work at any specific times or to a stipulated amount. Over a period of six weeks, Healy earned £32, which Broome paid him on 25 March 1945 without making any deductions.

The legal issues before the High Court were twofold. Firstly, whether the payment of £32 to Healy constituted "salary or wages" in respect of a "week or part thereof" or a "period of time in excess of one week" as contemplated by section 221C of the Act, thereby triggering the obligation to make deductions. Secondly, whether a prior dismissal of an information against Broome for the same alleged offence, described as "dismissed for want of prosecution," acted as a bar to the subsequent prosecution.

A majority of the High Court, comprising Latham C.J., Dixon, McTiernan, and Williams JJ., held that section 221C did not apply to the payment made to Healy. Their reasoning was that the payment of £32 was for a specific quantity of work (onions picked and bagged) and was not made in respect of any defined period of time. The Court distinguished this from payments made for work performed over a specific duration, such as weekly wages or pensions, where the obligation to make deductions would arise. Starke J. dissented, finding that the definition of "salary or wages" in section 221A, which included payments made at piece-work rates and under contracts for labour, indicated that section 221C was intended to apply to such payments, irrespective of whether they were calculated on a time basis. Regarding the plea of autrefois acquit, Starke and Dixon JJ. were of the view that the initial information, which did not adequately disclose an offence under section 221C, did not place the defendant in jeopardy, and therefore the dismissal was not a bar to the subsequent proceedings.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria and restoring the order of the magistrate dismissing the information. The majority concluded that the magistrate was correct in finding that section 221C was not applicable to the circumstances of the payment.