Legal Research
Cases
Krygger v Williams

Krygger v Williams

Case [1912] HCA 65 15 October 1912

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Standing

Statutory Construction

Procedural Fairness

Appeal

Constitutional Law

Statutory Interpretation

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

15 CLR 366

ON APPEAL FROM A COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS OF Defence - Compulsory military training-Religious objection to bear arms-Volidity

of Act - Exemption-Excuse-Defence Act 1903-1910 (No. 12 of 1904-No. 37 of 1910), secs. 61, 125, 135, 138, 143-The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), MELBOURNE,

The provisions of the Defence Act 1903-1910 imposing obligations on all male inhabitants of the Commonwealth in respect to military training do not prohibit the free exercise of any religion, and, therefore, are not an infringe-

A person who is forbidden by the doctrines of his religion to bear arms is not thereby exempted or excused from undergoing the military training and rendering the personal service required by Part XII. of the Defence Act

Decision of Court of Petty Sessions of Victoria affirmed.

APPEAL from a Court of Petty Sessions of Victoria.

At the Court of Petty Sessions at Ballarat before a police magistrate an information was heard whereby Alfred Willoughby Williams charged that Edgar Roy Krygger did, during the year of service 1911-1912, without lawful excuse fail to render the personal service required by Part XII. of the Defence Act 1903- 1911.

15 CLR 367

At the hearing evidence was given by the informant that the defendant was liable to render military service as a senior cadet and had not attended any drills during the year. The magistrate then asked the defendant what explanation he had to give, and the defendant said: " I decline to render military service because it is opposed to the will of God. I spend all my time reading the Scriptures." The defendant then went into the witness-box and, having made an affirmation, was asked by the magistrate: What are the grounds of your objections to military training? ?" The defendant answered All my spare time is occupied in reading the Scriptures. It is against my conscience and the Word of God to attend drill." The magistrate asked: "Why is it against the Word of God ? " The defendant answered "The Scriptures tell us 'if thine enemy smite thee on the one cheek turn to him the other also.' We have to do good to those who hate us, and especially we are told in the Bible that in the last days there shall be wars and rumors of wars, but the children of God are not to be troubled by these things. We are told that we are to the world but not of the world. Those that take the sword must perish by the sword." The magistrate then said: "Have you any witnesses ?" The defendant answered "No." The magis- trate again asked Do you affirm that it is your honest belief that it is wrong to serve as a cadet." The defendant answered

Yes, if I want to obey God." The case was then adjourned, and on the further hearing the defendant, who was then represented by his solicitor, went into the box and gave the following evidence: Attendance at drill is…

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 Krygger v Williams

Details

AGLC: Krygger v Williams [1912] HCA 65
Case: [1912] HCA 65
Decision Date: 15 October 1912

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Court of Petty Sessions of Victoria. The appellant, Edgar Roy Krygger, was charged with failing to render personal service required by Part XII of the Defence Act 1903-1911 without lawful excuse. Krygger's defence was based on his religious conviction that military service was opposed to the will of God and his conscience, citing biblical passages and the teachings of Jesus Christ. He argued that compulsory military training prohibited the free exercise of his religion and that his religious beliefs constituted a lawful excuse for non-compliance.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the provisions of the Defence Act compelling military training were unconstitutional and contrary to section 116 of the Constitution, which prohibits the Commonwealth from making laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Additionally, the court had to determine if Krygger's religious objections provided a lawful excuse under section 135 of the Defence Act, and whether section 143(3) of the Act, which mandates allotment to non-combatant duties for those forbidden by religion to bear arms, exempted him from training altogether.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the Court of Petty Sessions. Griffith C.J. held that section 116 of the Constitution prohibits the practice of religion, not the requirement to perform acts that may be contrary to religious beliefs, unless those acts are inherently religious. He found that compulsory military training, even if objectionable on religious grounds, did not prohibit the free exercise of religion. Furthermore, the court determined that section 143(3) did not exempt individuals from training but rather required their allotment to non-combatant duties where possible. The court reasoned that training, whether for combatant or non-combatant roles, was essential for national defence and that a conscientious objection to training in non-combatant duties was not a lawful excuse for refusing all training.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court of Petty Sessions were upheld.

Orders