Clough v Leahy

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.