THE COMMONWEALTH AND OTHERS Constitutional Law (Cth.)-Royal Commissions-Permissible subjects of inquiry H.
Interpretation of statutes and instruments so as not to extend beyond-Inves- tigation of subject matter of action pending in superior court-Legality-Royal Commission on Espionage-Validity-Whether exercising judicial power- Appointment of commissioners-Non-compliance with particular statutory provision for particular commission-Compliance with general statutory provision Fullagar J.
Interpretation-The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. C. 12). S. 71-Royal Com- mission Act 1954 (No. 2 of 1954), S. 3-Royal Commissions Act 1902-1933 (No. 12 of 1902-No. 1 of 1933), 8. 1A-Acts Interpretation Act 1901-1950 (No. 2 of 1901-No. 80 of 1950), SS. 15A, 23, 46 (b).
Section 1A of the Royal Commissions Act 1902-1933 confers a general power on the Governor-General by letters patent to issue commissions to such person or persons as he thinks fit requiring him or them to inquire into and report upon " any matter specified in the Letters Patent, and which relates to or is connected with the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth, or any public purpose or any power of the Commonwealth' Section 3 (1) of the Royal Commission Act 1954 empowers the Governor- General to issue a commission directed to such person as he thinks fit, requiring or authorizing that person to make inquiry into and report upon subjects specified in the letters patent being (a) the commission of acts of espionage in Australia; (b) the commission in Australia of other acts prejudicial to the security or defence of Australia; or (c) subjects related to any matter referred to in either of the last two preceding paragraphs.
By letters patent dated 3rd May 1954 and purporting to be issued in pursu- ance of the Constitution of the Commonwealth, the Royal Commission Act 1954 and all other powers thereunto enabling, the Governor-General appointed three commissioners to inquire into and report upon, inter alia (c) whether any persons or organizations in Australia have communicated information or documents to any such representative or agent (i.e. of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) unlawfully or to the prejudice or possible prejudice of the security or defence of Australia".
Held, that the commission did not exercise judicial power. Held, further, that although the appointment of only. one commissioner was authorized by the Royal Commission Act 1954, the appointment of the three commissioners was valid under the Royal Commissions Act 1902-1933, S. 1A. Attorney-General for the Commonwealth v. Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. (1914) A.C. 237; (1913) 17 C.L.R. 644, discussed.
Held, further, that the word 'unlawfully ' " in par. 3 of the letters patent read in accordance with S. 46 (b) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901-1950 did not render the letters patent invalid.
A person against whom allegations were made before the Royal Commission procured the issue of a writ out of the High Court against counsel assisting the commission and the Commonwealth. The causes of action were slander and libel, the words complained of having, it was alleged, been…
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 Lockwood v The Commonwealth
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Lockwood v The Commonwealth [1954] HCA 31
Case
[1954] HCA 31
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the High Court of Australia, Rupert Ernest Lockwood sought to challenge the validity of a Royal Commission appointed to inquire into espionage and related activities in Australia. The commission, comprising three commissioners, was established by letters patent issued by the Governor-General. Lockwood, who had been subpoenaed to appear before the commission and was the subject of allegations concerning certain documents, argued that the commission's appointment and terms of reference were invalid. He also sought to restrain the commission from proceeding with its inquiry into matters that were the subject of a defamation action he had commenced against the Commonwealth and counsel assisting the commission.
The legal issues before the Court included whether the Royal Commission was exercising judicial power, whether the appointment of three commissioners was valid given that the Royal Commission Act 1954 appeared to authorise only a single commissioner, and whether the inclusion of the word "unlawfully" in the letters patent rendered them invalid. Further issues concerned the validity of the commission's inquiry into matters that were the subject of pending litigation, and whether the commission's terms of reference were sufficiently connected to Commonwealth power.
Fullagar J. held that the commission did not exercise judicial power, as its function was to inquire and report, not to decide or determine legal rights. While the Royal Commission Act 1954 appeared to authorise only a single commissioner, the appointment of three commissioners was found to be valid under the broader provisions of the Royal Commissions Act 1902-1933. The Court also determined that the word "unlawfully" in the letters patent should be read in accordance with the Acts Interpretation Act 1901-1950 to mean "contrary to the laws of the Commonwealth," thus not invalidating the commission's terms of reference. Finally, the Court ruled that the existence of pending defamation proceedings did not prevent the commission from continuing its statutory inquiry, as statutory authority overrides common law principles that might otherwise suggest a stay.
Consequently, the Court dismissed Lockwood's application for an injunction and declared that the commission was entitled to proceed with its inquiry.