with knowledge - Separate informations against several defendants-Similar - charges - Hearing together by consent - Evidence - Partly inapplicable to SYDNEY,

some defendants-Admissibility of depositions of evidence given in preceding April 14, 15:

case admitted by consent-Irregularity or nullity-Waiver-Defendants not Aug. 14.

prejudiced--Sufficient evidence aliunde-Statutory prohibition-One order nisi in respect of several defendants severally convicted-Crimes Act 1900 (N.S.W.) (No. 40 of 1900), sec. 545c (1), (2), (3)*-Crimes (Intimidation and Molestation) Act 1929 (N.S.W) (No. 31 of 1929), sec. 2*-Justices Act 1902-1918 (N.S.W.) (No. 27 of 1902-No. 32 of 1918).

Separate informations were laid under sec. 545c of the Crimes Act 1900 (N.S.W.) (inserted therein by the Crimes (Intimidation and Molestation) Act 1929 (N.S.W.), sec. 2) against a number of persons for knowingly continuing in an * Sec. 545c of the Crimes Act 1900

death or grievous bodily harm, is a (N.S.W.), as inserted by sec. 2 of the

member of an unlawful assembly, Crimes (Intimidation and Molestation)

shall be liable, on conviction before a Act 1929 (N.S.W.), provides :- " (1)

police or stipendiary magistrate, to Whosoever knowingly joins an unlawful

imprisonment for a term not exceeding assembly or continues in it shall be

twelve months or to a fine not exceeding taken to be a member of that assembly,

fifty pounds. (3) Any assembly of five and shall, on conviction before a police

or more persons whose common object or stipendiary magistrate, be liable to

is by means of intimidation or injury imprisonment for a term not exceeding

to compel any person to do what he is six months or to a fine not exceeding

not legally bound to do or to abstain twenty pounds. (2) Whosoever being

from doing what he is legally entitled armed with any weapon or loaded arms,

to do, shall be deemed to be an unlawful or with anything which used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause

44 CLR 39

unlawful assembly, and against others for that, being armed with something which used as a weapon of offence was likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm, each was a member of an unlawful assembly. At the commence- ment of the hearing before the magistrate the defendants objected to the cases being heard together, and one case was proceeded with and a conviction was recorded therein. By consent all the remaining informations were then taken together, and evidence given in the preceding case by two police officers was, by consent, read over to them, adhered to and admitted, the depositions of the evidence of two other witnesses (T. and W.) also being tendered and by consent of counsel for the defendants admitted as evidence. The evidence showed that during the night of 15th and early morning of 16th December between five thousand and ten thousand men came from considerable distances and assembled at R. At dawn…

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 Munday v Gill

Details

AGLC: Munday v Gill [1930] HCA 20
Case: [1930] HCA 20
Decision Date: 14 August 1930

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appeal concerned the convictions of nineteen individuals for offences related to unlawful assembly under section 545c of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), as inserted by the Crimes (Intimidation and Molestation) Act 1929 (NSW). The core of the dispute arose from the Police Magistrate's decision to hear twenty separate informations against these individuals together, a practice referred to as "lumping" the cases.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the Police Magistrate had the jurisdiction to hear multiple separate informations against different defendants simultaneously, even with the consent of the defendants' counsel. The Court was also required to consider the sufficiency of the evidence presented to establish the unlawfulness of the assembly and whether the defendants had knowingly continued in such an assembly. Furthermore, the admissibility of certain evidence and the proper grounds for statutory prohibition were examined.

A majority of the High Court, comprising Gavan Duffy, Rich, Starke, and Dixon JJ., held that the Supreme Court was correct in quashing the convictions. The Court reasoned that the principle established in cases like *Crane v. Director of Public Prosecutions* and *R. v. Dennis*, which prohibits the joint trial of separate informations against different defendants, applied equally to summary jurisdiction proceedings before a magistrate. The Court found that the magistrate's act of hearing the cases together, despite the defendants' initial objection and subsequent consent, constituted a fundamental lack of jurisdiction, rendering the convictions void. This was not a mere irregularity that could be waived, but a vitiation of the entire proceeding, meaning the magistrate had not lawfully determined the guilt or innocence of each individual.

The High Court allowed the appeal, overturning the Supreme Court's decision. The majority found that the magistrate had jurisdiction to hear the cases together, even though it was an irregularity. They reasoned that the defendants, through their counsel, had consented to the joint hearing, thereby waiving any objection to the procedure. The Court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish that an unlawful assembly had occurred and that the defendants had knowingly continued in it. Consequently, the convictions were upheld.

Orders