R v Gough; Ex parte - [1962] HCA 56

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dixon C.J., McTiernan and Taylor JJ.

THE QUEEN v. GOUGH; Ex parte CAIRNS MEAT EXPORT CO. PTY. LTD.

(1962) 108 CLR 343

12 November 1962

Conciliation and Arbitration (Cth)

Conciliation and Arbitration (Cth)—Award—Clause dealing with termination of employment—Dismissal of four employees for insufficient effort—Notification of situation &hich could give rise to industrial dispute—Power or right of employer to dismiss—Order by Commissioner—Men to be offered re-engagement without break in the continuity of their service and with restoration of wages—Inter-State dispute—Whether order within power as variation of award—Prohibition—The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), s. 51 (xxxv.)—Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1961 (Cth), s. 4 (1), "Industrial matters", par. (k), ss. 32, 40 (1), 41, 59 (2)—The Federal Meat Industry Award, 1959, cl. 6.

Decisions

The following oral judgments were delivered:-
DIXON C.J. This is an order nisi for a writ of prohibition addressed to Mr. Commissioner Gough in respect of an order or orders, which the Commissioner purported to make, of a nature which I shall describe. (at p347)

2. The prosecutor who applies for the writ of prohibition is the Cairns Meat Export Company Pty. Limited. (at p347)

3. The matter concerns some proceedings before the Commissioner which are said to arise out of the operation and administration of two awards, or perhaps I should say an award and an order of variation. The main award is called by a short title prescribed by the document itself, "The Federal Meat Industry Award 1959". That award was made by Mr. Commissioner Austin after a prolonged hearing of an industrial dispute, which Mr. Commissioner Austin appears to have heard between the early days of July and the early days of February 1959. He made the award on February 3rd 1960. A variation was made by Mr. Commissioner Austin about a year afterwards. To that I shall refer. (at p347)

4. The original award was entitled "In a dispute between the Australian Meat Industry Employees Union and the Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia" and vice versa, and the body that I have mentioned, the Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia, is apparently an employers' organization and one would guess was registered as such, but the award, that is, the Federal Meat Industry Award 1959, itself provided that the award should bind the Australian Meat Industry Employees Union and its branches and the Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia and its members; it went on specifically to mention a list of employers whose names were in this schedule and at the end of the schedule under Queensland is the name of the Cairns Meat Export Company Pty. Limited of Cairns, the prosecutor in this proceeding for prohibition. (at p347)

5. Now it appears that in the meat industry, at the time of the original award, certain procedures now in use had not then been introduced, and the purpose of the amendment made on 14th February 1961, the variation, was really to provide for the people engaged…

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 Gough; Ex parte

Details

AGLC: R v Gough; Ex parte [1962] HCA 56
Case: [1962] HCA 56
Decision Date: 12 November 1962

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved were the Crown and a Mr. Gough, who sought a writ of prohibition against the Crown. The dispute concerned the validity of a jury's verdict in a criminal trial. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether a new trial should be granted due to alleged misconduct by a juror. Specifically, the court had to determine if the juror's conduct, which involved accepting a bribe, was so prejudicial to the accused as to vitiate the verdict and warrant a new trial.

The High Court considered the principles governing the integrity of jury deliberations and the circumstances under which a verdict may be set aside. The court reasoned that the acceptance of a bribe by a juror fundamentally undermines the fairness and impartiality of the trial process. Such conduct, regardless of whether it demonstrably influenced the verdict, creates an appearance of bias and erodes public confidence in the administration of justice. Consequently, the court held that the verdict was vitiated by the juror's misconduct.

The High Court ordered that a new trial be held.

Orders