Corbet v Lovekin

The case of *Corbet v Lovekin* involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of a Court of Petty Sessions in Western Australia. The appellant, Hugh Annan Corbet, Chief of the Censorship Staff of Western Australia, had laid a complaint against Arthur Lovekin, Paul William Herman Thiel, and Alfred Edward Morgans, proprietors of the *Daily News* newspaper. The complaint alleged that the newspaper had unlawfully published information concerning measures related to the defence of the Suez Canal, which might be directly or indirectly useful to the enemy, contrary to the War Precautions Act 1914 and its associated regulations. The magistrate had dismissed the complaint, finding that the published information was not of the character that might be useful to the enemy, and he was not satisfied with the reasons provided by prosecution witnesses.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether special leave to appeal should be granted from the magistrate's decision. The appellant sought to appeal on the ground that the magistrate's finding was against the weight of the evidence. The respondents argued that the sole question was what inference should be drawn from the facts, and that the case was governed by the precedent set in *Eather v. The King*.

The High Court, by a majority, rescinded the special leave to appeal. Griffith C.J. and Gavan Duffy, Powers, and Rich JJ. held that the appeal was based solely on the ground that the magistrate's conclusion was against the weight of evidence, a basis upon which special leave to appeal is rarely, if ever, granted, particularly in criminal matters. They considered this practice to be well-established and consistent with the approach of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Isaacs J., while expressing a strong personal view that the published information was of immense importance to the enemy and that the appeal should be entertained, felt bound by the decision in *Eather v. The King*, which established a restrictive practice for granting special leave in criminal cases, requiring a fundamental subversion of justice. Griffith C.J. also added that, on the merits, he did not believe the publication was rationally calculated to be advantageous to the enemy, and distinguished the present case from *Eather v. The King* by noting that the latter involved an appeal by a convicted criminal, whereas this case concerned an appeal by the Crown where a subordinate court might have misunderstood the law.

Consequently, the High Court rescinded the special leave to appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the respondents' costs.