Francis v Rowan - [1941] HCA 6

COMPLAINANT, ROWAN

DEFENDANT, Criminal Law-Mens rea-National security-Endeavouring to influence public

opinion in a manner likely to be prejudicial to the efficient prosecution of the war -Nature of intention to found offence-National Security Act 1939-1940 (No. 15 MELBOURNE,

of 1939-No. 44 of 1940), sec. 10-National Security (General) Regulations March 6, 28.

(S.R. 1939 No. 87), reg. 42*.

To establish a charge of endeavouring " orally

to influence public opinion

in a manner likely to be prejudicial to prosecution of the war," contrary to the provisions of reg. 42 of the National Security (General) Regulations, it is sufficient to show that the person charged consciously [made a public speech which was likely to be prejudicial to the efficient prosecution of the war, and it is immaterial that in making the speech he did not intend to influence public opinion in a manner likely to be prejudicial to the efficient prosecution of the war.

APPEAL from a Court of Summary Jurisdiction of South Australia.

On 23rd September 1940, on the complaint of Ernest Leslie Francis in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Adelaide, Francis Rowan was charged that he 'endeavoured on 26th. June 1940 orally to influence public opinion (to wit-the opinion of a section of the

* Reg. 42 of the National Security

prejudicial to the defence of the Com- (General) Regulations provides :- (1)

monwealth, or the efficient prosecution

A person shall not-(a) endeavour,

(4) In this regu- whether orally or otherwise, to influence

lation-(a) The expression public public opinion (whether in Australia or

opinion includes the opinion of any elsewhere) in a manner likely to be

section of the public."

64 CLR 197

64 C.L.R.]

OF AUSTRALIA. public attending a meeting at the Prospect Town Hall called a meeting of the League Against Conscription) in a manner likely to be prejudicial to the efficient prosecution of the war contrary to the provisions of reg. 42 of the National Security (General) Regulations and sec. 10 of the National Security Act 1939-1940." On the hearing before the magistrate, it appeared that Rowan at a public meeting convened by the League Against Conscription at the Prospect Town Hall on 26th June 1940 had made a speech during the course of which he made certain remarks which were derogatory to the then Government of the Commonwealth, its members, and also its policy. Examples of the remarks made by Rowan are set out in the judgment of Rich A.C.J. hereunder. The magistrate who tried the complaint found as a fact that what Rowan had said was likely to be prejudicial to the efficient prosecution of the war, but that he had never intended to influence public opinion in a manner likely to be prejudicial to the efficient prosécution of the war. Proceeding to construe reg. 42, the magistrate then held that there must be a conscious effort or endeavour on the part of the person charged to influence the public in a manner likely to be prejudicial to the efficient prosecution…

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 Francis v Rowan

Details

AGLC: Francis v Rowan [1941] HCA 6
Case: [1941] HCA 6
Decision Date: 28 March 1941

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Francis v Rowan* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a South Australian Court of Summary Jurisdiction. The appellant, Ernest Leslie Francis, laid a complaint against the respondent, Francis Rowan, for endeavouring orally to influence public opinion in a manner likely to be prejudicial to the efficient prosecution of the war, contrary to regulation 42 of the National Security (General) Regulations. The magistrate had found that Rowan's speech was likely to be prejudicial to the war effort but dismissed the complaint, holding that Rowan did not intend to influence public opinion in such a prejudicial manner.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the interpretation of regulation 42, specifically whether it required proof of a conscious intention by the accused to prejudice the efficient prosecution of the war, or if it was sufficient to prove that the accused voluntarily made statements likely to have that prejudicial effect. The respondent argued that *mens rea*, a guilty mind or intention, was a necessary element of the offence, requiring proof that Rowan intended to produce the prejudicial outcome. The appellant contended that the regulation did not require such specific intent, and that the likelihood of prejudice to the war effort was sufficient, regardless of the accused's subjective intention.

The High Court, by majority, allowed the appeal. The Court reasoned that the purpose of regulation 42 was to safeguard the community and public interest during wartime, and that a construction requiring proof of a specific intention to prejudice the war effort would undermine its efficacy. It was held that the offence was committed if the accused voluntarily endeavoured to influence public opinion, and the statements made were likely to be prejudicial to the efficient prosecution of the war, irrespective of whether the accused intended that prejudicial outcome. The Court found that the magistrate's construction of the regulation, which required a conscious effort to prejudice the war effort, was erroneous and that the evidence supported a conviction.

The High Court ordered that the appeal be allowed, the magistrate's order be discharged, and the respondent be convicted and fined £25. The parties had agreed on costs, and no order was made in that regard.

Orders