NEW SOUTH WALES. Constitutional law-Royal Commission-Limitations on power of Executive to appoint
-Commission to inquire into matters within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Arbitration Court-Validity of Commission-Witness- Refusal to be sworn- Reasonable excuse-Royal Commissioners Evidence Act (N.S.W.), (No. 23 of 1901), secs, 3, 8.
Royal Commissions of inquiry are lawful and the Courts have no power to restrain persons acting under the authority of such Commissions, provided they do not invade private rights, or interfere with the course of justice.
A Royal Commission was issued by the Government with the advice of the Executive Council, authorizing and appointing certain persons to make "a diligent and full inquiry into the formation, constitution, and working of a certain industrial union registered under the Industrial Arbi- tration Act, and also into the following questions: Whether that union was an evasion of the Trade Union Act or the Industrial Arbutration Act; whether the existence of that union was any obstacle to the presentation of any dispute which might arise in the industry to which it belonged to the Industrial Arbitra- tion Court whether its registration under the last-mentioned Act hampered that Court from doing justice in any such dispute; and whether any alteration of the law, and, if so, what, was necessary in respect of the matters to be inquired into. Questions relating to the status of the union had been raised in certain proceedings before the Court of Arbitration, which had given a
Held, that there was nothing unlawful in the appointment of such a Held, also, that the alleged impropriety of the appointment of the Commis- sion was not a "reasonable excuse" for the refusal of a witness to be sworn and give evidence, when duly summoned to appear before the Commission, under sec. 3 of the Royal Commissioners Evidence Act (No. 23 of 1901) 1.
Decision of the Supreme Court, (1904) 1 S.R. (N.S.W.), 401, reversed.
APPEAL from a decision of the Supreme Court: Ex parte Leahy Ex parte Rayment 2.
The respondent was charged before a magistrate, on the infor- mation of the appellant, under sec. 8 of the Royal Commissioners Evidence Act 1901, with having refused, when duly summoned, to be sworn and to give evidence before a Royal Commission.
The Commission was by letters patent dated 2nd February, 1904, addressed to Alfred Paxton Backhouse, Esquire, one of the judges of the District Court of New South Wales, as President, and to the Minister for Lands and six other members of the Parliament of the State, authorizing and appointing them to
13. Whenever by letters patent whose evidence is in the judgment of under the Great Seal any person or per- such president, chairman, commissioner, sons have been appointed by the Gover- or of any member of such commission, nor a commission to make an inquiry, material to the subject-matter of such the president or chairman of such com- inquiry, to attend…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Clough v Leahy
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Clough v Leahy [1904] HCA 38
Case
[1904] HCA 38
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Clough (the appellant) was prosecuted for refusing to be sworn as a witness before a Royal Commission appointed by the Executive Government of New South Wales. The Commission was established to inquire into matters within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Arbitration Court. Clough contended that the Commission lacked the constitutional power to compel his attendance and testimony. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, comprising Griffith CJ, Barton and O'Connor JJ.
The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the Governor of New South Wales had the constitutional authority to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into matters falling within the purview of the Industrial Arbitration Court, and consequently, whether a witness could lawfully refuse to be sworn before such a Commission on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The Court also considered the scope of "reasonable excuse" for refusing to be sworn under the Royal Commissioners Evidence Act (N.S.W.).
The Court held that the Executive Government possessed the power to appoint Royal Commissions of inquiry into any matter of public concern, irrespective of whether that matter fell within the jurisdiction of a particular court. The Royal Commissioners Evidence Act empowered Commissioners to summon witnesses and compel their testimony, and a refusal to be sworn, without a lawful excuse, constituted an offence. The Court found that the appellant's objection to the Commission's jurisdiction did not constitute a reasonable excuse for his refusal to be sworn.
Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the Royal Commission and the conviction of the appellant for refusing to be sworn as a witness.