Peebles v Honourable Tony Burke - [2010] FCA 838

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Peebles v Honourable Tony Burke [2010] FCA 838

Citation: Peebles v Honourable Tony Burke [2010] FCA 838

Parties: MS ROBYN PEEBLES v THE HONOURABLE TONY BURKE MP, AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY (NSW BRANCH) and AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION

File number: NSD 963 of 2010

Judge: MOORE J

Date of judgment: 9 August 2010

Catchwords: FEDERAL PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS – electoral advertising – prohibited acts – printing, publishing or distributing a matter or thing intended or likely to mislead elector in or in relation to casting of a vote – "casting of a vote" refers only to the act of recording or expressing or giving effect to the elector's choice of a candidate by the physical act of voting, not the formation of that choice

Legislation: Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth)

Cases cited: Evans v Crichton-Browne (1981) 147 CLR 169 applied
Webster v Deahm (1993) 116 ALR 223 applied

Date of hearing: 4 August 2010

Date of last submissions: 9 August 2010

Place: Sydney

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 15

Counsel for the Applicant: P King

Solicitor for the Applicant: Robert Balzola and Associates

Counsel for the First and Second Respondents: R Darke SC & J Spinak

Solicitor for the First and Second Respondents: Watson Mangioni

Counsel for the Third Respondent: K Stern

Solicitor for the Third Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 963 of 2010

BETWEEN:
MS ROBYN PEEBLES
Applicant

AND:
THE HONOURABLE TONY BURKE MP
First Respondent

AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY (NSW BRANCH)
Second Respondent

AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 AUGUST 2010

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 963 of 2010

BETWEEN:
MS ROBYN PEEBLES
Applicant

AND:
THE HONOURABLE TONY BURKE MP
First Respondent

AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY (NSW BRANCH)
Second Respondent

AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE:

9 AUGUST 2010

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 4 August 2010 I made an order dismissing an application for injunctive relief under s 383 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the Electoral Act). These are my reasons.
In certain circumstances, an elector can vote in Parliamentary Elections conducted under the Electoral Act by submitting a postal vote rather than voting at a polling booth on polling day or casting a pre-poll vote. Postal voting is dealt with under Part XV of the Electoral Act. It is necessary to apply in writing for a postal vote. Section 184AA of that Act authorises the issue of an application form for a postal vote by a person or organisation. It may be issued as an attachment to or forming part of other written material issued by that person…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Peebles v Honourable Tony Burke and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] FCA 838
Decision Date: 9 August 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Peebles v Honourable Tony Burke, the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether certain advertising materials distributed by the respondent, Honourable Tony Burke, during a federal parliamentary election were in breach of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth). The applicant, Peebles, argued that the advertisements were misleading and thus prohibited under the relevant section of the Act. The crux of the dispute centred on whether the advertisements were intended or likely to mislead electors in relation to the act of casting their vote, a narrower interpretation of the phrase compared to misleading electors in relation to the formation of their choice.

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the phrase "casting of a vote" within the context of the electoral advertising prohibitions. The court needed to decide whether this phrase referred solely to the physical act of recording or expressing a voter's choice, or if it also encompassed the broader process of forming that choice. The resolution of this issue was critical in assessing whether the respondent's advertisements fell foul of the Act. The court engaged in a textual analysis of the relevant statutory provisions, considering the ordinary meaning of the words used and the context in which they appeared. It also examined relevant case law and statutory interpretation principles to guide its interpretation.

Upon examining the language of the Electoral Act and relevant case law, the court concluded that the phrase "casting of a vote" was intended to refer narrowly to the physical act of voting rather than the formation of a voter's choice. The court held that the respondent's advertisements did not mislead electors in relation to the act of casting their vote, as they did not affect the physical process of voting itself. Consequently, the respondent's advertising materials did not breach the statutory prohibitions. As a result, the application was dismissed, and the respondent was found not to have engaged in prohibited electoral advertising.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

Note:

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citation:		Peebles v Honourable Tony Burke [2010] FCA 838
Parties:		MS ROBYN PEEBLES v THE HONOURABLE TONY BURKE MP, AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY (NSW BRANCH) and AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION
File number:		NSD 963 of 2010
Judge:		MOORE J
Date of judgment:		9 August 2010
Catchwords:		FEDERAL PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS – electoral advertising – prohibited acts – printing, publishing or distributing a matter or thing intended or likely to mislead elector in or in relation to casting of a vote – "casting of a vote" refers only to the act of recording or expressing or giving effect to the elector's choice of a candidate by the physical act of voting, not the formation of that choice
Legislation:		Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth)
Cases cited:		Evans v Crichton-Browne (1981) 147 CLR 169 applied Webster v Deahm (1993) 116 ALR 223 applied
Date of hearing:	4 August 2010
Date of last submissions:	9 August 2010
Place:	Sydney
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	15
Counsel for the Applicant:	P King
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Robert Balzola and Associates
Counsel for the First and Second Respondents:	R Darke SC & J Spinak
Solicitor for the First and Second Respondents:	Watson Mangioni
Counsel for the Third Respondent:	K Stern
Solicitor for the Third Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 963 of 2010

JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:	4 AUGUST 2010
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE:	9 AUGUST 2010
PLACE:	SYDNEY