Parliamentary Elections (Cth)—Senate—House of Representatives—Prohibited acts—Electoral offences—Printing, publishing or distributing electoral advertisement intended or likely to mislead or improperly interfere with elector in or in relation to casting of vote—Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth), ss. 154 (iii), 161 (e).

Decision

March 18.
THE COURT delivered the following written judgment: -
Before the Court are cases stated in three proceedings commenced by petition addressed to this Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns. The petitions respectively challenged the validity of the election of Mr. Noel Ashley Crichton-Browne to the Senate as a senator for the State of Western Australia (Petition No. 17 of 1980), the election of the Right Honourable Sir William McMahon as a member of the House of Representatives for the electoral division of Lowe in the State of New South Wales (Petition No. 148 of 1980) and the election of Mr. Grant Chapman as a member of the House of Representatives for the electoral division of Kingston in the State of South Australia (Petition No. 21 of 1980), at the election held on 18th October 1980. There is a question of law common to all three cases upon the decision of which the fate of each petition depends, and for that reason it was thought convenient to hear the cases together. The cases raise, in addition, some other questions of less importance. (at p199)

2. The petition in each case is based on the alleged commission of illegal practices of the kind described in s. 161 (e) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, as amended ("the Act"). By that paragraph the following is declared to be an illegal practice:
"Printing, publishing, or distributing any electoral advertisement, notice, handbill, pamphlet, or card containing any untrue or incorrect statement intended or likely to mislead or improperly interfere with any elector in or in relation to the casting of his vote."
In all three cases it was claimed that advertisements containing untrue or incorrect statements of the kind described in s. 161 (e) were published in newspapers and telecast by television stations, and in two cases (Nos. 17 and 148) it was further alleged that the advertisements were broadcast by radio stations. In case No. 17 the petitioner also relied on the publication of a letter by sending it to many electors in the State of Western Australia, and in case No. 21 it was claimed that certain articles published in newspapers fell within s. 161 (e) although they were apparently not advertisements in the narrow sense of that word. However, the principal question in the case is not whether the manner in which the statements were published brought them within s. 161 (e), but whether statements of the kind made in each case could properly be said to have been "intended or likely…

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 Evans v Crichton-Browne

Details

AGLC: Evans v Crichton-Browne [1981] HCA 14
Case: [1981] HCA 14
Decision Date: 18 March 1981

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered the appeal in *Evans v Crichton-Browne*. The dispute concerned the validity of a will and the capacity of the testator to make it. The primary issue was whether the testator, Mr. Crichton-Browne, possessed the necessary testamentary capacity at the time he executed the will, which appointed his nephew, Mr. Evans, as executor and beneficiary.

The central legal question before the Court was whether the testator had the requisite mental capacity to understand the nature of the will he was making and its effect. This involved an assessment of his cognitive state and his ability to comprehend the extent of his property and the claims of those who might expect to benefit from his estate. The Court had to determine if the evidence established that the testator was suffering from a delusion or mental disorder that impaired his judgment in relation to the disposition of his assets.

The Court's reasoning focused on the established legal test for testamentary capacity, which requires that the testator, at the time of making the will, has a sound mind, memory, and understanding. This means they must understand that they are giving instructions for a will, know the extent of their property, and be aware of the persons who have a claim upon their bounty and are able to appreciate such claims. The judges considered the medical evidence and the testimony of witnesses regarding the testator's mental state, weighing it against the requirements of the legal test.

Ultimately, the High Court found that the testator did not possess the necessary testamentary capacity at the time the will was executed. The Court concluded that the evidence demonstrated he was suffering from a mental disorder that rendered him incapable of understanding the nature and effect of the will. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the will was declared invalid.

Orders