ON APPEAL FROM A COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS OF Shipping-State Collision Regulations-Validity-Inconsistency between Common-
wealth law and State law-Repugnancy between Commonwealth law and Imperial law-The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), secs. 51, 98, 06-109-Navigation Act 1912-1920 (No. 4 of 1913-No. 1 of 1921), secs. 2, 115, 258, -Navigation Act 1901 (N.S.W.) (No. 60 of 1901), secs. 113, -Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (57 &58 Vict. c. 60), secs. 418, 735, 736-Navigation (Collision) Regulations (Statutory Rules 1923, No. 100), reg. 2; Sched., arts. 19, 30-Regulations of 3rd July 1911 for Preventing Collisions at Sea (N.S.W.), art. 19-Sea Regulations 1910 (Imp.), Isaacs, Higgins, arts. 19, 30-Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (28 &29 Vict. c. 63), sec. 2- and Starke JJ. Interpretation Act 1889 (52 &53 Vict. c. 63), sec. 18. High Court-Jurisdiction-Appeal from State Court exercising Federal jurisdiction-
Prosecution under State law-Contention that State law inconsistent with Federal law-The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), secs. 73, 76, 109-Judiciary Act 1903-1920 (No. 6 of 1903-No. 38 of 1920), secs. 30, 39.
The master of a steamship registered in Australia and engaged in inter-State trade was charged before a Stipendiary Magistrate of New South Wales with a breach of the Navigation Act 1901 (N.S.W.), in that within the harbour of Port Jackson in New South Wales he contravened art. 19 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea made under that Act. On the hearing the defendant contended that the proceedings should have been taken under the Common- wealth Navigation Act 1912-1920 and the Navigation (Collision) Regulations made thereunder, and that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to hear the information because the relevant provisions of the Navigation Act 1901 (N.S.W.)
were inconsistent with the Commonwealth Navigation Act and were invalid by force of sec. 109 of the Constitution. The defendant having been convicted and fined,
Held, by the whole Court, that an appeal from the conviction lay to the High Court under sec. 73 of the Constitution and sec. 39 (2) of the Judiciary Act
Miller v. Haweis, (1907) 5 C.L.R. 89, followed. Held, also, by Knox C.J., Isaacs, Gavan Duffy and Starke JJ. (Higgins dissenting), that the provisions of the Navigation Act 1901 (N.S.W.) and of art. 19 of the New South Wales Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea,
SO far as they related to the offence with which the defendant was charged, were inconsistent with the Navigation Act 1912-1920 and were therefore invalid under sec. 109 of the Constitution; and that art. 19 of the New South Wales Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea was not a " 'special rule, duly made by local authority, relative to the navigation of any harbour, river, or inland waters' within the meaning of art. 30 of the Schedule to the Navigation (Collision) Regulations.
Held, further, by Knox C.J., Isaacs, Gavan Duffy and Starke JJ., that, by reason of sec. 735 of the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act 1894 and sec. 2 (2) of the…
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 Hume v Palmer
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Hume v Palmer [1926] HCA 50
Case
[1926] HCA 50
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of *Hume v Palmer* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a conviction in a New South Wales Court of Petty Sessions. The appellant, the master of a steamship registered in Australia and engaged in inter-State trade, was charged under the *Navigation Act 1901* (N.S.W.) for contravening collision regulations within Port Jackson. The appellant contended that the State legislation was inconsistent with the Commonwealth *Navigation Act 1912-1920* and its associated regulations, rendering the State law invalid under section 109 of the Constitution, and that therefore the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction.
The High Court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether an appeal from the Magistrate's decision lay to the High Court, considering the Magistrate's exercise of jurisdiction in relation to a constitutional question. Secondly, and more substantively, the Court had to ascertain whether the provisions of the New South Wales *Navigation Act* and its collision regulations were inconsistent with the Commonwealth *Navigation Act* and its regulations, and consequently invalid under section 109 of the Constitution. The Court also considered whether the Commonwealth regulations, by virtue of Article 30, preserved the operation of State regulations for specific harbours, and whether the Commonwealth legislation itself was valid, having regard to the *Merchant Shipping Act 1894* (Imp.) and the *Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865* (Imp.).
A majority of the High Court (Knox C.J., Isaacs, Gavan Duffy, and Starke JJ.) held that the appeal was competent, as the Magistrate's decision necessarily involved the interpretation of the Constitution. On the substantive issue, the majority found that the New South Wales *Navigation Act* and its collision regulations were inconsistent with the Commonwealth *Navigation Act* and its regulations, and therefore invalid under section 109 of the Constitution. This inconsistency arose from differences in penalties and enforcement mechanisms, despite the collision rules themselves being in identical terms. The majority also concluded that Article 30 of the Commonwealth regulations did not preserve the State regulations in this instance, as the New South Wales regulations were not considered a "special rule, duly made by local authority" in the context of the article. Furthermore, the Court held that the Commonwealth *Navigation Act* and its regulations were valid, being authorised by section 735 of the *Merchant Shipping Act 1894* and not invalidated by the *Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865*. Higgins J. dissented on the merits, finding no inconsistency between the State and Commonwealth legislation in this case, particularly in light of Article 30 of the Commonwealth regulations.
Consequently, the majority of the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and set aside the orders made by the Magistrate.