R v Brislan; Ex parte Williams

The case of *R v Brislan; Ex parte Williams* involved an application for a writ of prohibition to restrain further proceedings on a conviction for maintaining an appliance for receiving wireless telegraphy without authorization. The applicant, Dulcie Williams, had been charged under the *Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905-1919* for operating a wireless receiving set without a licence. The informant was Roy Vincent Brislan, a wireless inspector. The matter was heard by the Full Court of the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the *Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905-1919* was validly enacted under the Australian Constitution, and specifically whether the Commonwealth Parliament had the constitutional power to legislate with respect to radio broadcasting. This involved determining whether radio broadcasting fell within the scope of "postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and other like services" as enumerated in section 51(v) of the Constitution, and whether a wireless receiving set constituted an appliance for receiving "messages" within the meaning of the Act.

A majority of the High Court (Latham C.J., Rich, Starke, Evatt, and McTiernan JJ.) held that the Commonwealth Parliament did possess the power to legislate with respect to radio broadcasting under section 51(v) of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that radio broadcasting constituted a form of wireless telephony and that the term "telephonic" and "telegraphic" services, along with "other like services," were intended to encompass future developments in communication technology. The Court found that a wireless receiving set was an appliance maintained for the purpose of receiving messages by means of wireless telegraphy, as defined by the Act, and that the Act, so construed, was a valid exercise of the Commonwealth's legislative power. Dixon J. dissented.

The Court ordered that the order nisi for a writ of prohibition be discharged, meaning the conviction of Dulcie Williams was upheld.