ON APPEAL FROM A POLICE MAGISTRATE OF Constitutional Law-Legislative power of the Parliament of the Commonwealth-
Making jurisdiction of Federal Courts exclusive-Investing Federal jurisdiction in State Courts-State Court exercising Federal jurisdiction-Appeal to High Court-Jurisdiction-The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), secs, 75, 76, 77- Judiciary Act 1903-1920 (No. 6 of 1903-No. 38 of 1920), secs, 38, 38A, 39- March 31; Crimes Act 1914-1915 (No. 12 of 1914-No. 6 of 1915), sec. 12-Acls Inter- prelation Act 1901 (No. 2 of 1901), sec. 26. Criminal Law-False returns by Commonwealth officer-Intent to defraud-Evidence
-Crimes Act 1914-1915 (No. 12 of 1914-No. 6 of 1915), sec. 74.
Held, by the High Court (Knox C.J., Higgins, Gavan Duffy, Powers, Rich and Starke JJ.), that sec. 39 of the Judiciary Act 1903-1920 (the Court expressing no opinion as to the provisions in sub-sec. 2 (a) ) is a valid exercise of the powers conferred upon the Parliament of the Commonwealth, and therefore that under it an appeal will lie to the High Court from a decision of a Police Magistrate of a State upon an information charging an offence against the provisions of the Crimes Act 1914-1915.
Baxter v. Commissioners of Taxation (N.S.W.), 4 C.L.R., 1087, followed. Per Higgins J. :-The objection that an Act is in excess of the powers of a Parliament arises when the Act purports to do something which the Parliament had no power to do, not when the Act does something which, in the circum- stances, is useless or unnecessary. Where there is a grant of Federal juris- diction subject to invalid conditions or restrictions, the grant may be valid and the conditions or restrictions ignored.
Sec. 74 of the Crimes Act 1914-1915 provides that "Any person who, being a Commonwealth officer, and employed in a capacity in which he is required or
enabled to furnish returns or statements touching (a) any remuneration payable or claimed to be payable to himself or to any other person, makes a return or statement touching any such matter which is, to his know ledge, false in any material particular, shall be guilty of an offence."
Held, by the High Court (Knox C.J., Gavan Duffy and Starke JJ.), that in order to constitute an offence under that section it is not necessary that there should be an intent on the part of the accused to defraud the
APPEAL from a Police Magistrate of New South Wales.
Before a Police Magistrate at Goulburn in New South Wales an information was heard whereby Francis Maxwell de Frayer Lorenzo charged that Bernard John Carey, on or about 19th July 1920 being a Commonwealth officer employed in a capacity in which he was required to furnish statements touching remuneration claimed to be payable to himself, did make and furnish a statement touching certain remunerations claimed to be payable to himself, namely, a statement claiming travelling allowance for periods engaged by him in travelling on duty in connection with senior cadet parade and area…
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 Lorenzo v Carey
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Lorenzo v Carey [1921] HCA 58
Case
[1921] HCA 58
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of a Police Magistrate of New South Wales. The appellant, Lorenzo, had laid an information against the respondent, Carey, alleging that Carey, a Commonwealth officer, had made a false statement in a claim for travelling allowance, contrary to section 74 of the Crimes Act 1914-1915. The Magistrate dismissed the information, leading to the appeal by way of case stated. A preliminary objection was raised regarding the validity of section 39 of the Judiciary Act 1903-1920, which was argued before a Full Bench.
The legal issues before the Court were twofold: firstly, whether section 39 of the Judiciary Act was a valid exercise of the Commonwealth Parliament's legislative power, and consequently, whether an appeal lay to the High Court from the State Magistrate's decision; and secondly, whether an intent to defraud was a necessary element to constitute an offence under section 74 of the Crimes Act 1914-1915.
The High Court, in a unanimous decision on the validity of section 39, held that it was a valid exercise of the Parliament's power under sections 77(ii) and 77(iii) of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that section 39 effectively removed jurisdiction from State Courts in matters where the High Court had original jurisdiction and then reinvested them with Federal jurisdiction, subject to certain conditions. The Court found that the fact that State Courts might already possess jurisdiction over some of these matters did not invalidate the grant of Federal jurisdiction. Regarding the Crimes Act offence, the Court held that section 74 did not require proof of an intent to defraud; the offence was complete if the statement was known by the accused to be false in a material particular. The Court therefore allowed the appeal, remitted the case to the Police Magistrate for rehearing, and stated that the Magistrate would be at liberty to consider any defence other than the necessity of proving an intent to defraud.