R v Bradley

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria concerning the jurisdiction of the Court of General Sessions. The accused, James Michael Bradley and Edward Lee, were convicted in the Court of General Sessions for possessing coining instruments contrary to the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914-1932. They appealed their convictions, arguing that the Court of General Sessions lacked jurisdiction because the offence was an "offence against the King's prerogative or government," which is expressly excluded from the jurisdiction of Courts of General Sessions by section 187(IV) of the Justices Act 1928 (Vict.). The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld this argument and quashed the convictions, leading to the Crown's appeal to the High Court.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether an offence under the Commonwealth Crimes Act relating to coining instruments constituted an "offence against the King's prerogative or government" within the meaning of section 187(IV) of the Justices Act 1928 (Vict.), thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the Court of General Sessions. This required the Court to consider the nature of coinage offences, the historical relationship between coinage and the Crown's prerogative, and the impact of statutory regulation on the prerogative.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, reasoned that while the right to coin money was historically part of the Crown's prerogative, the offence charged was a statutory offence created by the Commonwealth Crimes Act. Applying the principle established in *Attorney-General v. De Keyser's Royal Hotel*, when a statute addresses a matter previously within the prerogative, the exercise of power and the definition of offences are governed by the statute, not the prerogative itself. The Court found that the offence was a breach of a specific Commonwealth statute and not a direct infringement of the King's prerogative or government in the sense contemplated by section 187(IV). Furthermore, the Court distinguished between offences that directly challenge governmental authority, such as sedition, and statutory offences related to coinage, concluding that the latter did not fall within the intended scope of "offences against the government." The Court also noted that historical practice and English statutory exceptions, which were not mirrored in the Victorian Act, had led to a misapprehension by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Consequently, the High Court reversed the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal, holding that the Court of General Sessions did have jurisdiction to try the offence. The matter was remitted to the Court of Criminal Appeal to be dealt with in accordance with law.