Gumley v Breen

24 CLR 453

RESPONDENT. DEFENDANT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

NEW SOUTH WALES. Police Offences-Insulting words-Use in public street-Words - referring to persons H. C. OF

not present-Special leave to appeal to the High Court-Police Offences (Amend- ment) Act 1908 (N.S.W.) (No. 12 of 1908), sec. 6.

Sec. 6 of the Police Offence (Amendment) Act 1908 (N.S.W.) imposes a penalty on "every person who, in or near any public street, thoroughfare, or place, or within the view or hearing of any person passing therein (7) behaves in a riotous, indecent, offensive, threatening, or insulting manner: or (b) uses any threatening, abusive, or insulting words."

The Full Court of the Supreme Court having held that a statement made at a meeting of over two hundred people that there were thirty thousand British

24 CLR 454

women behind the firing line doing servile work and acting as concubines to the British officers, was not "insulting words" within the meaning of the

Held, that special leave to appeal to the High Court should be refused. Special leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales: Ex parte Breen, 18 S.R. (N.S.W.), 1, refused.

APPLICATION for special leave to appeal.

At the Paddington Court of Petty Sessions at Paddington, Sydney, before a Stipendiary Magistrate, an information was heard whereby Charles Gumley charged that James Breen did in a public street use insulting words, to wit, that thirty thousand British women were behind the firing line in France doing servile work and acting as concubines to the British officers. Evidence was given that the statement complained of was made by the defendant at an anti- conscription meeting in the street at which two hundred or three hundred persons were present, including a large number of women, and that very considerable disorder arose immediately after the statement was made. The defendant was convicted and fined £5. He then obtained an order nisi for prohibition on the ground that no offence was disclosed.

The order nisi was discharged by Street J., but on appeal the Full Court reversed the order of Street J. and made the order nisi absolute on the ground that sec. 6 of the Police Offences (Amendment) Act 1908 did not go further than to provide a penalty for a violation of public order by language calculated to hurt the personal feelings of individuals whether the words are addressed directly to those individuals or are used in their hearing, and whether the words refer to their own character or that of persons closely associated with them Ex parte Breen 1.

The informant now applied for special leave to appeal from the decision of the Full Court.

Milner Stephen, for the applicant. To constitute the offence of using insulting words under sec. 6 of the Police Offences (Amend- ment) Act 1908, it is not necessary that the person to whom the words

118 S.R. (N.S.W.), 1.

24 CLR 455

are directed should be present when the words are used. The object H. C. of the provision is not to protect persons who are present from insult, but to secure the observance of the proprieties in the street and to prevent disorder arising. The section is intended to deal with the same class of offences as sec. 8 of the Vagrancy Act 1902, but the Legislature intended to make sec. 6 of the Act of 1908 as wide as possible and to remove the necessity of proving either an intention to provoke a breach of the peace or that a breach of the peace had been occasioned. The statement made comes within the literal meaning of the section, and there is no reason to limit that meaning. There is evidence from which the Magistrate might fairly have found that there was an insult to persons who were present. The words were a direct insult to any British subject who was present.

BARTON J. We do not think that this is a case in which special leave should be granted.

Special leave to appeal refused. Solicitor, J. v. Tillett, Crown Solicitor for New South Wales.

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant, Charles Gumley, was the informant in proceedings against the respondent, James Breen, who had been charged with using insulting words in a public street contrary to section 6 of the *Police Offences (Amendment) Act 1908* (N.S.W.). The alleged insulting words were a statement made at an anti-conscription meeting in a public street, attended by two to three hundred people, asserting that thirty thousand British women were behind the firing line in France, performing servile work and acting as concubines to British officers.

The legal issue before the High Court was whether the statement made by Mr. Breen constituted "insulting words" within the meaning of section 6 of the *Police Offences (Amendment) Act 1908*. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the words needed to be directed at individuals present or refer to persons closely associated with them, or if the provision extended to words that might be considered insulting to a broader group or to the general public, even if not personally addressed. The Supreme Court had held that the words were not "insulting" as they did not refer to the character of individuals present or those closely associated with them, and thus did not violate public order by hurting personal feelings.

The High Court refused special leave to appeal. The court implicitly accepted the reasoning of the Supreme Court that the offence under section 6 was directed at language calculated to hurt the personal feelings of individuals, whether addressed to them directly or used in their hearing, and whether concerning their own character or that of those closely associated with them. The applicant argued that the provision was intended to maintain public order and prevent disorder, and that the words used were a direct insult to any British subject present. However, the High Court found no sufficient reason to grant special leave to appeal, indicating a lack of arguable error in the Supreme Court's interpretation of the scope of "insulting words" under the Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established