Legal Research
Cases
R v Brewer

R v Brewer

Case [1942] HCA 33 7 December 1942

Charge

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction

Appeal

Criminal Law

Statutory Interpretation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

66 CLR 535

Secret CommissionAgent-Perso serving under the Crown-Person who has so H.

served but is no longer serving-Secret Commissions Act 1905 (No. 10 of 1905), secs. 2, 3, * 4.*

The definition of "agent" in sec. 3 of the Secret Commissions Act 1905 does not include a person who has served, but is no longer serving, under the Crown. Therefore the giving of a secret gift to such a person as a reward for having aided to obtain a contract with the Crown is not an offence under

So held by Latham C.J. and McTiernan J. (Rich J. dissenting).

CASE STATED.

Upon the trial in the High Court of Mervyn MacPherson Brewer for an offence against the Commonwealth Secret Commissions Act 1905, the jury returned a verdict of guilty, whereupon the trial judge (Starke J.) reserved judgment and, pursuant to sec. 72 of the Judiciary Act 1903-1940, reserved certain questions of law for the consideration of the Full Court of the High Court.

The following statement of facts is substantially as it appears in the case stated by his Honour.

* The Secret Commissions Act 1905

firm. It also includes a person serving provides as follows Sec. 3: In this

under the Crown." Sec. 4: (1) Any Act- Agent includes any corporation,

person who, without the full knowledge firm, or person employed by or acting

and consent of the principal, directly or having been acting or desiring or

(b) gives or agrees intending to act for or on behalf of any

to give or offers to an agent of the other corporation, firm, or person,

any gift or considera- whether as agent, partner, factor,

tion as an inducement or reward- broker, servant, trustee, director, or in any other capacity, and whether he

to obtain for any person an agency or acts in the name of the principal or

contract for or with the principal shall in any other name, and in the case

be guilty of an indictable offence."

66 CLR 536

Mervyn MacPherson Brewer was charged on indictment which, as amended, alleged that on or about 2nd July 1941, at Melbourne, he did contrary to the Secret Commissions Act 1905 give to one William Ronald Ritchie an agent within the meaning of the Act to wit a person serving under the Crown namely in the Australian Defence Canteens Service Central Control without the full knowledge and consent of the Crown a gift to wit the sum of £450 as a reward for having aided to obtain for MacRobertson Pty. Ltd. certain con- tracts for the purchase and sale of confectionery with the Crown namely with the Australian Defence Canteens Service Central Control.

The contracts were based upon fifty orders given by the Australian Defence Canteens Service Central Control to MacRobertson Pty. Ltd. between 3rd November 1940 and 2nd April 1941 inclusive. The orders were signed by Ritchie thus :- For Australian Defence Canteens Service, Central Control, W. R. Ritchie." Brewer was the assistant managing director of MacRobertson…

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 R v Brewer

Details

AGLC: R v Brewer [1942] HCA 33
Case: [1942] HCA 33
Decision Date: 7 December 1942

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Brewer concerned Mervyn MacPherson Brewer, who was charged with an offence against the Commonwealth's Secret Commissions Act 1905. The charge alleged that Brewer gave a sum of £450 to William Ronald Ritchie, described as an agent and a person serving under the Crown in the Australian Defence Canteens Service, as a reward for aiding in obtaining contracts for MacRobertson Pty. Ltd. with the Crown. The jury returned a guilty verdict, but the trial judge reserved certain questions of law for the Full Court of the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the Full Court were whether William Ronald Ritchie qualified as an "agent" within the meaning of the Secret Commissions Act 1905 at the time the payment was made to him, specifically whether he was a "person serving under the Crown." Additionally, the Court had to determine if the contracts obtained by MacRobertson Pty. Ltd. were indeed contracts "with the Crown." These questions hinged on the interpretation of the Act's definitions of "agent" and "principal," and the nature of the Australian Defence Canteens Service.

Latham C.J. and McTiernan J. held that the definition of "agent" in section 3 of the Secret Commissions Act 1905 did not encompass a person who had served under the Crown but was no longer serving at the time of the alleged offence. They reasoned that the phrase "a person serving under the Crown" in the definition of agent referred to a person currently serving, not one who had previously served. Consequently, giving a secret gift to such a former employee as a reward for past assistance in obtaining a Crown contract did not constitute an offence under the Act. Rich J. dissented.

The Court answered the reserved questions in the negative. Accordingly, the verdict of guilty was set aside, and a verdict of not guilty was ordered to be entered.

Orders