Grieve v Lewis - [1917] HCA 48

23 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.

413

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

GRIEVE .

A p p e l l a n t ;

I n form ant ,

A N D

LEWIS ..

R e s p o n d e n t .

D e f e n d a n t ,

ON APPEAL FROM A COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS OF

VICTORIA.

War Precautions—Regulations—Proof of regulations—Regulations treated as being H. C. o f A.

in evidence—Construction—Dissuading person from continuing to be engaged

1917.

in despatch of shipping— Rules Publication Act 1903-1916 {No. 18 of 1903—

'—-—'

No. 16 of 1916), sec. 6—War Precautions Act 1914-1916 (No. 10 of 1914—No. Mi i.bodrne,

3 of 1916), sec. 6—War Precautions Regulations 1915, reg. 40c (Statutory Rules Sept.

18.

1917, Nos. 190 and 210)—Crimes Act 1914 (No. 12 o / 1914), sec. 7. Buton

Isa.ics and

On the hearing before a Police Magistrate of an information for an offence Oavnn nufly j j .

again.st a statutory regulation made under the authority of the li ar Precau tions Act, a printed paper, purporting to bo a copy of the statutory rule con taining the regulation and to be printed by the Government Printer as required by sec. 6 of the Rules Publication Act 1903-1916, was produced and was dealt with by the parties as being part of the material before the Court, but was not formally put in or marked as an exhibit.

Held, that the regulation was properly in evidence.

Regulation 40c of the It'ar Precautions Regulations 1915 provides that “ Any person who, by word, deed, or otherwise—(a) interferes with, impedes, prevents or hiiulers the discharge, loading, coaling or despatch of shipping, or the performance of any inrlustrial operation connected therewith or incidental thereto, or (b) interferes with or impedes any person or body of persons engaged in, or dissuades, prevents or hinders any person or body of persons from becoming, or continuing to be, engaged in, the discharge, loading, coaling or despatch of shipping, or the performance of any such industrial operation, or

414 HIGH COURT

[1917.

H. C. OF A. the production, manufacture, or transport of munitions or warlike material

1917.or material for munitions, including foodstuffs, fuel, and base metals and minerals, shall be guilty of an offence.”

G r ie v e

V. Held, that the words “ any such industrial operation ” in clause (6) refer Therefore, where an information alleged that the defendant did contrary to the ll'ar Precautions Regulations 1915 attempt to dissuade a named person from continuing to be engaged in “ the performance of an industrial operation connected with the shipping, to wit the carriage of goods to the Melbourne wharves for shipment there,”

L e w is .

to the “ industrial operation ” mentioned in clause (a).

Held, that the information disclosed an offence against clause (6) of regulation

40c.

Ap p e a l from a Court of Petty Sessions of…

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 Grieve v Lewis

Details

AGLC: Grieve v Lewis [1917] HCA 48
Case: [1917] HCA 48
Decision Date: 18 September 1917

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Grieve v Lewis*, the High Court of Australia considered a dispute concerning the application of regulations made under the *War Precautions Act 1914* (Cth). The specific regulation in question related to the offence of dissuading a person from continuing to be engaged in certain activities.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the regulations, which were not formally tendered as evidence, could be treated as being in evidence by virtue of their nature as Commonwealth regulations. The Court was required to determine the proper approach to proving or assuming the existence and content of such regulations in a legal proceeding.

The High Court held that regulations made under the *War Precautions Act* were of such a public and official nature that they could be judicially noticed and treated as being in evidence without formal proof. The Court reasoned that it was impractical and unnecessary to require formal tendering of every regulation in every case, especially when they were readily accessible and established as part of the law of the Commonwealth. This principle of judicial notice facilitated the efficient administration of justice by allowing courts to rely on the known existence of statutory instruments.

Orders