Legal Research
Cases
R v Humby; ex parte Rooney

R v Humby; ex parte Rooney

Link copied

Case Copied 21 December 1973 31 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

. McTiernan, Menzies, Gibbs, Stephen and Mason JJ.

THE QUEEN v. HUMBY; Ex parte ROONEY.

(1973) 129 CLR 231

21 December 1973

Constitutional Law (Cth)—Matrimonial Causes

Constitutional Law (Cth)—Divorce and matrimonial causes—Decision that jurisdiction to hear matrimonial causes exercisable only by constituent members of Supreme Court of State—Decrees and orders of other officers of court invalid—Remedial legislation—Rights, liabilities, obligations and status of individuals declared to be and always to have been the same as if purported decrees made by judge of Supreme Court—Validity—Whether interference with constitution of State Court—Usurpation of judicial functions by Parliament—Separation of powers—Court empowered to order payments of maintenance to be made to "public authority"—Whether includes State public authority—Mandatory or enabling—Validity—Discrimination against State—Imposition of burden on State—The Constitution (63 &64 Vict., c. 12), s. 51 (xxii.)—Matrimonial Causes Act 1959 (Cth), s. 87 (1) (f), (g)*—Matrimonial Causes Act 1971 (Cth).** Matrimonial Causes—Federal jurisdiction vested in Supreme Court of State—Order for maintenance of children made by Master of Court—No jurisdiction—Remedial legislation—Rights, liabilities, obligations and status of individuals declared to be and always to have been the same as if purported decrees made by judge of Supreme Court—Court empowered to order payments of maintenance to be made to "public authority"—Whether State public authority obliged to accept payments—Validity—The Constitution (63 &64 Vict., c. 12), s. 51—(xxii.)—Matrimonial Causes Act 1959 (Cth), s. 87 (1) (f), (g)—Matrimonial Causes Act 1971 (Cth). *Section 87 (1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1959 (Cth) so far as material provides: "The Court, in exercising its powers under this Part, may do any or all of the following: " ... (f) order that payments be made direct to a party to the marriage, or to a trustee to be appointed or to a public authority for the benefit of a party to the marriage; (g) order that payment of maintenance in respect of a child be made to such person or public authority as the court specifies: ..." **Infra, pp. 238-239.

Decisions

December 21.
The following written judgments were delivered:-
McTIERNAN J. The order nisi granted in this matter was granted by the Supreme Court of South Australia. Upon the return of the order before the Full Court the learned judges considered that the order nisi raised inter se questions which resulted in its removal into the High Court. An order was made by the Chief Justice that the order nisi be argued before the Full Court of the High Court. The applicant in the matter is the defendant in proceedings in a court of summary jurisdiction of the State of South Australia. The respondents in the matter are the special magistrate before whom the hearing of the proceedings commenced, and the complainant who instituted the proceedings. (at p236)

2. The complaint is headed "Community Welfare Act, 1972" (this is an Act of the State of South Australia), and concludes with a reference to s. 169 of this Act. This is a penal provision for the enforcement of a "maintenance…

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 R v Humby; ex parte Rooney 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: [1973] HCA 63
Decision Date: 21 December 1973

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, R v Humby and ex parte Rooney, sought a writ of prohibition from the High Court of Australia to prevent the respondent, Humby, from proceeding with a committal hearing. The dispute concerned the validity of certain evidence that the respondent intended to use at the committal hearing.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the evidence, which consisted of statements made by the applicants to police officers, was admissible in the committal proceedings. Specifically, the court had to determine if the statements were obtained in circumstances that rendered them inadmissible, thereby vitiating the committal process.

The High Court, in a joint judgment, held that the statements were obtained in circumstances that rendered them inadmissible. Their Honours reasoned that the police officers had acted in a manner that was oppressive and unfair, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The court applied the principle that evidence obtained in contravention of fundamental legal rights or in circumstances of oppression is inadmissible, even at a committal hearing, as it would be an abuse of process to allow such evidence to be considered.

Consequently, the High Court made absolute the order nisi for a writ of prohibition, preventing the committal hearing from proceeding on the basis of the inadmissible evidence.

Orders