Herscu v The Queen

This case concerns an appeal to the High Court of Australia by the appellant, Herscu, against the respondent, The Queen. The dispute arose from an indictment alleging offences under section 87 of an Act of Parliament. The appellant was charged with attempting to alter conditions prescribed by the Brisbane City Council regarding access to the Sunny Park shopping centre, which the appellant, as a Minister, allegedly sought to achieve through his officers.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the interpretation of the phrase "in the discharge of the duties of his office" as it appeared in section 87 of the relevant Act. Specifically, the appellant argued that this phrase referred only to legal duties, not to broader or more general supervisory responsibilities. The Court was required to determine whether the actions of the Minister, as alleged in the indictment, constituted an act done "in the discharge of the duties of his office" in the legal sense required by the criminal offence.

The High Court considered the reasoning of the Court of Criminal Appeal, which had found that the Minister lacked the specific duty or power to direct the council to alter the access conditions. However, the Court of Criminal Appeal had nonetheless inferred a general duty on the Minister to supervise local authorities, from which they deduced that the Minister's actions could be considered to have occurred "in the discharge of the duties of his office." The appellant contended that this interpretation was too broad and that the phrase should be confined to legally mandated duties.