Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Hailey

The case of *Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Hailey* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose when Leslie William Alfred Hailey, a former officer of the Department of Railways, claimed salary due to him. Hailey had been convicted of simple larceny by justices of the peace under section 476 of the *Crimes Act 1900* (NSW), a summary conviction for an indictable offence. The Commissioner for Railways argued that this conviction meant Hailey had vacated his office pursuant to section 80 of the *Government Railways Act 1912* (NSW), which stipulated that an officer convicted of a felony would be deemed to have vacated their position.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether Hailey's summary conviction for simple larceny constituted a conviction for a "felony" within the meaning of section 80 of the *Government Railways Act 1912* (NSW), thereby causing him to vacate his office. A secondary issue raised was whether Hailey was still considered an "officer" within the meaning of the *Government Railways Act* following legislative changes concerning the administration of the railways.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, held that Hailey's conviction did indeed amount to a conviction for a felony for the purposes of section 80 of the *Government Railways Act*. While the summary conviction under section 476 of the *Crimes Act* did not carry the same potential punishment as a conviction on indictment for simple larceny (which could attract penal servitude under section 117), section 481 of the *Crimes Act* was determinative. This section provided that a conviction under section 476 would have the "same effect as a conviction upon an indictment for the offence would have had." The Court reasoned that the vacation of office under section 80 of the *Government Railways Act* was a direct legal effect of a conviction upon indictment for simple larceny, and therefore, by operation of section 481, it was also an effect of the summary conviction. The Court also found that Hailey remained an "officer" within the meaning of the *Government Railways Act*, as the case stated clearly established this fact, and subsequent legislative changes did not render him legally incapable of being such an officer.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the judgment of the Supreme Court and restored the verdict of the District Court judge. This meant that Hailey was deemed to have vacated his office upon his conviction, and was therefore not entitled to the salary claimed for the period after his conviction.