Mellifont v The Queen

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on an application for special leave to appeal by Terrence Joseph Mellifont. The applicant had been convicted of perjury following a criminal trial. The dispute concerned the validity of an oath administered during an inquiry, which formed the basis of the perjury charge.

The legal issues before the Court were threefold: first, whether the oath administered to the applicant was properly administered in accordance with the relevant legislation; second, the interpretation of the word "testimony" within the perjury provisions of the Criminal Code; and third, the propriety of the Full Court's use of section 29 of the District Courts Act in making its order.

The applicant contended that the oath was not properly administered because it was not administered by the commissioner as required by the Commissions of Inquiry Act. He argued that common law rules regarding the administration of oaths were irrelevant in this instance, as the oath arose from a specific statute, not the common law. The applicant submitted that the rules for administering oaths under a statute should be determined solely by that statute, and not by common law principles, citing historical authorities on the imposition of oaths. The Full Court, however, had apparently applied common law rules to the situation.