Legal Research
Cases
Lloyd v Wallach

Lloyd v Wallach

Case [1915] HCA 60 17 September 1915

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

20 CLR 299

RESPONDENT.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF War Precautions-Arrest of naturalized person-Regulations-Validity-Habeas -

corpus-Return-Warrant-Recitals- Reason to believe"-Conclusiveness of warrant-Authority of Minister of Defence-War Precautions Act 1914-1915 (No. 10 of 1914-No. 2 of 1915), sec. 4-Habeas Corpus Act 1816 (56 Geo. III. MELBOURNE, c. 100), sec. 3-War Precautions Regulations 1915 (Statutory Rules 1915, No. Sept. 7, 17. 130), reg. 55.

Reg. 55 (1) of the War Precautions Regulations 1915 provides that " Where the Minister" for Defence "has reason to believe that any naturalized person is disaffected or disloyal, he may, by warrant under his hand, order him to be detained in military custody in such place as he thinks fit during the continuance of the present state of war."

Held, that the regulation was a valid exercise of the power conferred by sec. 4 of the War Precautions Act 1914-1915.

To a writ of habeas corpus issued out of the Supreme Court of Victoria in respect of W. who had been naturalized and was detained in military cus- tody, the military officer in whose custody W. was returned a warrant under the hand of the Minister of Defence which recited that the Minister, upon information furnished to him, had reason to believe and did believe that

was disaffected or disloyal. W. stated by affidavit that he was not dis- affected or disloyal. The Minister being called as a witness refused on the ground of public policy to state the grounds of his belief. The Supreme Court having ordered the discharge of W., on appeal to the High Court,

Held, by the whole Court, that, assuming that the fact of the Minister's belief and the grounds for his belief were examinable, and that the Minister was properly called as a witness, the Minister was entitled to refuse to answer

20 CLR 300

questions as to his belief; that there was no evidence to challenge either the 1915.

fact of his belief or the grounds for it; and therefore that the detention of W. under the warrant was justified.

Semble, per Higgins J., that under the Act 56 Geo. III. e. 100, sec. 3, though the truth of the facts alleged in the return to the habeas may be inquired into by the Court, the Court has no right to inquire into the truth of the facts recited in the warrant which is referred to in the return.

Decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria R. v. Lloyd Ex parte Wallach, (1915) V.L.R., 476; 37 A.L.T., 75, reversed.

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of Victoria.

On 26th July 1915 a writ of habeas corpus issued out of the Supreme Court of Victoria commanding Major Archibald Lloyd, an officer charged with the duty of detaining persons ordered to be detained in military custody in Victoria, to have the body of Franz Wallach before the Supreme Court together with the cause of his taking and detainer. To this writ Major Lloyd made the return that Wallach was detained…

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 Lloyd v Wallach

Details

AGLC: Lloyd v Wallach [1915] HCA 60
Case: [1915] HCA 60
Decision Date: 17 September 1915

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, Cussen J, Madden CJ, and A’Beckett J considered a dispute between Lloyd and Wallach. The precise nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided text, but it involved a legal matter brought before this appellate court.

The court was required to determine the legal issues arising from the case presented by Lloyd and Wallach. The specific questions before the judges are not explicitly stated in the provided excerpt.

The reasoning of the court and the legal principles applied are not detailed in the provided text. The judgment of Cussen J, Madden CJ, and A’Beckett J would have addressed the substantive legal arguments and reached a conclusion based on applicable Australian law.

The final orders or outcome of the case are not discernible from the provided text.

Orders